MARYLAND 

1633 to 1776 

BEING AN ACCOUNT OF THE MAIN CURRENTS 

IN THE POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT 

OF MARYLAND AS A PROPRIETARY PROVINCE 



THESIS 

PRESENTED TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY 
OF BERNE 



RUDOLF EMIL SCHCENFELD 

OF WASHINGTON 
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 



Von der philosophischen Fakultat auf Antrag des Herrn Prof. Dr. Woker 
angenomtnen. 

BERN, den 9. Dezember 1920. Der Dekan: 

Prof. Dr. P. GRUNER. 

BERNE / BOCHLER & Co., PRINTERS / 1921 



FOREWORD 

The following pages, written as part requirement for the 

degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Berne, are 

designed to briefly trace the history of Maryland from the date 

of its foundation to the Revolutionary War. My especial thanks 

are due my father, Dr. Herman SchcEnfeld, at whose suggestion 

this work was undertaken, and to Prof. P. Woker, under whose 

guidance it was achieved — to both of whom I make grateful 

acknowledgement of indebtedness. I also desire to thank John 

J. Meily, Esquire, American Consul at Berne, and Mr. Jean Alle- 

mann for valuable assistance. 

R. E. S. 

Berne, Switzerland, March 1921. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chap. I. Founding of Maryland and its Charter 7 

Chap. II. Attacks upon the Maryland Charter 14 

Chap. III. The Church and Toleration in Maryland 25 

Chap. IV. Form of Government and Influences toward Democracy ... 40 

Chap. V. People vs. Proprietor 51 

Chap. VI. The People of Maryland vs. the Home Government 72 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

ARCHIVES 

Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, 1636-37 to 1697. 

Proceedings of the Council, 1636 to 1692. 

Journal of the Upper House, Md. Historical Society, Baltimore. 

Journal of the Lower House, id. 

Acts of the General Assembly, id. 

Proceedings of the Council, id. 

NEWSPAPERS 
The Maryland Gazette. State Library, Annapolis. 

BOOKS 

BACON, T., Laws of Maryland at Large. 

BOZMAN, J. L., The History of Maryland from its Settlement in 1633 to the 

Restoration in 1660. 2 Vol. 
BROWNE, W. H., Maryland, the History of a Palatinate. 
BROWNE, W. H., George and Cecilius Calvert. 

DOYLE, H. A., English Colonies in America, Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas. 
FISKE, J., Old Virginia and her Neighbours. 2 Vol. 
HART, A. B., Editor of the American Nation. 

Vol. 4, England in America, by L. G. Tyler. 

Vol. 5, Colonial Self-Government, by C. McL. Andrews. 

Vol. 6, Provincial America, by E. B. Greene. 
HALL, C. C, The Lords Baltimore and the Maryland Palatinate. 
MERENESS, N. D., Maryland as a Proprietary Province. 
McMAHON, J. V. L., Historical View of the Government of Maryland. 
STEINER, B. C, Beginnings of Maryland, 1631 to 1639. 
THOMAS, J. W.. Chronicles of Colonial Maryland. 



CHAPTER I. 

FOUNDING OF MARYLAND AND ITS CHARTER. 

In the year 1623, England and Spain, hereditary enemies 
since the days of the Reformation, were to be brought together 
through the marriage of Charles I., then Prince of Wales, with 
a Spanish Infante. Such was the plan of George Calvert, prin- 
cipal Secretary of State at the time and a powerful faction of the 
English court. However when the plan became known, it was 
so violently opposed by the people and Commons, that its erst- 
while sponsors, with the exception of Calvert, repudiated it. 

Calvert believed that the hatred between the two nations 
should give way to a period of sympathetic understanding and 
that the alliance would serve this end. In addition, in his own 
case, there was a strong religious motive. His tendencies were 
distinctly Roman Catholic. As a member of the English govern- 
ment he was necessarily a member of the Church of England, 
but at heart he had become a Roman Catholic. Therefore on 
the collapse of the policy that he had sponsored he announced 
his conversion to the Church of Rome and retired from political 
life. In spite of this, his personal influence with James 1. re- 
mained unaffected and he was even raised to the Irish peerage 
as Baron Baltimore of Longford County, Ireland. 

As a result of this relinquishment of power Baltimore was 
free to turn his full attention to colonization enterprise in North 
America. He had been a pioneer in colonization there. As coun- 
cillor of the New England Company and a member of the Vir- 
ginia Company during the precarious years of its early existence, 
he had been identified with British colonial enterprise in America 
practically at its inception. In 1624 when the Virginia charter 



— 8 — 

was revoked and it became a crown colony, he was appointed 
one of the provisional council for its government. In 1620 he 
purchased the rights over the southeastern peninsula of New- 
foundland, called Avalon, from Sir William Vaughan and the fol- 
lowing year sent over a body of colonists. 

In 1625 James I. of England died and was succeeded by 
his son, Charles, who sought to retain Baltimore's services by 
offering to dispense with the oath of supremacy in his particular 
case. But the latter pleaded the necessity of visiting his colony, 
Avalon. In this connection Baltimore wrote Sir Thomas Went- 
worth in 1627: 

" I must either go and settle it in better order, or else give 
it over, and lose all the charges I have been at hitherto, for other 
men to build their fortunes upon. And I had rather be esteemed 
a tool by some, for the hasard of one month's journey, than to 
prove myself one certainly for six years by-past, if the business 
be now lost for the want of a little pains and care."^ 

In 1628 Baltimore moved to Avalon with forty colonists and 
his family, with the exception of his eldest son Cecilius, who 
remained in England. But in a few months he decided to dis- 
continue his efforts to develop this colony. In a letter to the 
king he explained that he had been deceived, that everything 
was completely frozen from October till May and that the climate 
was so rigorous as to render the colony valueless except as a 
fishing station. He closed with a petition for a grant of land 
more to the south. 

Leaving Avalon with his family, Baltimore made his way 
down the coast to Virginia. His reception there was anything 
but cordial. He was first of all, a Roman Catholic, a fact par- 
ticularly distasteful to the Virginians. In addition, he had been 
one of the commissioners appointed by James I. for the control 
of Virginia, and it was feared that part or perhaps the whole of 
the colony might be granted him. To deter him from remaining 
he was tendered the oath of allegiance which required him to 
swear that he believed the king to be "the only supreme governor 
in his realm and dominions in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things 



W. H. Brown, Maryland, The History of a Palatinate, page 9. 



— 9 — 

or causes. " ^ As a Roman Catholic he naturally declined, soon 
after left the colony, and after examining the coast, returned to 
England. 

On his arrival he petitioned the King for a grant of land 
south of the James River. But upon the counter petition of Wil- 
liam Claiborne, a member of the Virginia government, who had 
been sent to England by the Virginia Assembly for the express 
purpose of preventing any encroachment on Virginia's territory, 
and who urged that Virginia desired to establish sugar plantations 
on these lands, Baltimore agreed to renounce this patent and 
requested that the unsettled territory north of the Potomac River 
be granted him. 

On April 15, 1632 before this grant had received the imprint 
of the great seal, George Calvert, !«* Lord Baltimore died and 
the charter was granted to his son Cecilius, 2^<^ Lord Baltimore. 
George Calvert, though of a religious faith that involved political 
disfranchisement in England, had won and retained the friend- 
ship of two wayward and changeful British monarchs and by the 
force of his personal influence, had assured a charter to his son, 
upon which was to be built the State of Maryland, a permanent 
monument to the House of Baltimore. 

The charter of the new State, issued in June 1632, modeled 
upon the palatinate form of government of the Bishopric of 
Durham, provided for the erection of a similar form of govern- 
ment in the new world with the Barons of Baltimore as Lords 
Palatine. The boundaries of the province were to be: the fortieth 
parallel on the north; on the west a line drawn due south from 
the fortieth parallel to the farthest source of the Potomac River; 
on the south, the lower bank of the Potomac River to the 
Chesapeake Bay, across the Bay to Watkins Point, thence due 
east to the Atlantic Ocean. This territory included not only the 
present state of Maryland but also territory which forms the pres- 
ent state of Delaware, a large part of Pennsylvania, and a part 
of Virginia. 

Cecilius immediately undertook to plant a colony. The Ark 
and Dove, ships of three hundred and fifty and fifty tons respec- 



' Maryland Archives, Proceedings of the Council, 1636-1667, pages 16, 17. 



— 10 — 

lively, were to carry the prospective settlers to the New World. 
Of the compariy, about twenty were of gentle blood and chiefly 
Roman Catholics, whereas the great bulk of the remaining two 
hundred and more were artisans and craftsmen, chiefly Prot- 
estants. Cecilius had planned to accompany his colonists but 
was prevented by the necessity of protecting his charter against 
powerful interests which had unsuccessfully opposed its passing and 
were now intent upon securing its revocation. 

The Ark and Dove had left Gravesend, when the Star Cham- 
ber received a report that the crew had failed to take the oath 
of allegiance. Cecilius' Roman Catholic faith had given rise to 
numerous rumors as to the purpose of the expedition, some as ex- 
treme as that the ships were to carry nuns and soldiers to Spain. 
An order to Admiral Pennington guarding the straits arrived in time 
to enable him to intercept the ships and administer the neces- 
sary oath. That complete, they were allowed to proceed. At the 
Isle of Wight two Jesuit priests were taken aboard, Andrew White 
and John Altham. After a three month's trip the ships arrived 
at Old Point Comfort, rested a week, then sailed up the Potomac 
River and landed at St. Clements' Island. 

The expedition was in charge of the brother of the Lord 
Proprietor, Leonard Calvert. The latter arranged through Henry 
Fleet, a Virginian, who knew the Indian languages, to purchase 
land already cleared and cultivated, from the Yaocomic Indians. 
The latter harassed by the neighboring Susquehannoughs, were 
preparing to leave and gladly gave title to their land to the 
English settlers in exchange for a few axes, hoes and cloth. Upon 
this land was founded the town of St. Mary's, the first town in 
the province of Maryland. 

The land was rich and possessed many natural advantages, 
the many rivers and the Bay made communication easy, the 
climate though cold in winter was not rigorous, — and of vital 
importance, food existed in abundance. The Yaocomic Indians 
assisted the settlers in learning to cultivate the native corps of 
corn and tobacco, the latter soon becoming the staple product 
for export from the province and even its currency. Under such 
favorable circumstances the colonists began an existence which 
can be characterized as successful from the beginning. 



- 11 — 

The system of government, though modeled on that of 
Durham, was nevertheless unique. It has been correctly said 
that it was "more ample in terms than any similar charter ever 
granted by an English king. " ^ 

The new province, which the charter provided should be 
called Maryland, in honor of Charles' Catholic queen, Henriette 
Maria, was to be held in free and common socage by Lord 
Baltimore, his heirs or assigns, for all time, in return for the 
annual payment of two Indian arrows at Windsor and one fifth 
of all gold and silver mined. It was expressly provided that it 
was not to be held "in capite, nor by Knight's service"* thus 
specifically exempting him from all services, military and other- 
wise, except those specifically mentioned. 

Lord Baltimore, and his heirs were to be "the true and ab- 
solute lords and proprietors of the region aforesaid saving always 
the faith and allegiance and sovereign dominion " due the crown 
of England. He was empowered to "to ordain, make and enact 
laws, of what kind soever... whether relating to the public state 
of the said province, or the private utility of individuals, of and 
with the advice, assent, and approbation of the freemen of the 
said province." He was further empowered "to make and con- 
stitute fit and wholesome ordinances from time to time, to be 
kept and observed within the province aforesaid, as well for the 
conservation of the peace, as for the better government of the 
people inhabiting therein." These ordinances were to be "in- 
violably observed" as long as they were "consonant to reason" 
and not repugnant or contrary to the laws, statutes, or rights of 
England. He and his heirs were further to have the right of 
making war and peace; even as "full and unrestrained power, 
as any captain-general of an army ever hath had" and to be able 
"to summon to their standards, and to array all men, of what- 
soever condition, or wheresoever born, for the time being, in the 
said province of Maryland, to wage war and to pursue even 



' MacMahon, J. V. L. An Historical View of the Government of Mary- 
land.— Vol. 1, page 155. 

^ Bacon, T., Laws of Maryland at Large (Translation from the Latin). Like- 
wise quotations which follow. 



— 12 — 

beyond the limits of their province, the enemies and ravagers 
aforesaid, infesting those parts by land and by sea." 

They were given the right to establish courts of justice, 
appoint judges and magistrates and other civil officers, execute 
laws, pardon offenders; "and do all and singular other things 
belonging to the completion of justice, and to courts, pretorian 
judicatories, and tribunals, judicial forms and modes of proceeding, 
although express mention thereof in these presents be not made." 

It was further provided that in view of the remoteness of 
the region, and as "every access to honors and dignities may 
seem to be precluded, and utterly barred, to men well born, 
who are preparing to engage in the present expedition, and 
desirous of deserving well, both in peace and war, of us and 
our kingdoms"... plenary power was granted to the Baron of 
Baltimore then holding the title as well as his heirs or assigns 
"to confer favors, rewards and honors, upon such subjects, in- 
habiting within the province aforesaid, as shall be well deserving, 
and to adorn them with whatsoever titles and dignities they shall 
appoint (so that they be not such as are now used in England)". 

The Lord Proprietor was further to have the patronage and 
distribution of benefices of churches and the privilege to found, 
erect, dedicate and consecrate churches and chapels. 

The King bound himself and his successors to lay no taxes, 
customs, subsidies or other contributions whatever upon the 
people of the province, and in case of such a demand being 
made the charter expressly declared that this clause should be 
pleaded as a discharge in full. The freemen could be called to 
assembly at such time and in such manner as the Lord Proprietor 
saw fit but they were to have no representation in the English 
Parliament and the latter was to have no right to make laws for 
them. 

Such were the primary provisions of the charter. They pro- 
vided for rights that were nothing short of royal and the province 
was indeed "a kingdom within a kingdom". 

The rights of the people were safeguarded more by impli- 
cation than express provision. They and their descendants were 
to remain English subjects ; all laws were to be made with their 
advice and assent; no ordinance should be made depriving them 



- 13 - 

of life, freehold, goods or chattels ; all laws should be reasonable 
and agreeable to the laws of England so far as they conveniently 
might be; and the people of Maryland should be entitled to 
"all the privileges, franchises and liberties" which other English 
subjects enjoyed. 

The Proprietor was the source of all power, — civil, military 
and religious. But the granting of privilege did not necessarily 
imply the means to enforce it, and opposition to royal prerog- 
ative witnessed in many controversies in the province of Mary- 
land ended in less than a century and a half in complete triumph 
of popular liberty and overthrow of autocratic control. 

The principal inducements held out to prospective colonists 
were two: the possiblity of becoming land owners and the 
assurance of freedom from religious pressure and persecution in 
the event of their being of a faith other than that of the Church 
of England. 

In a letter of instructions written by Cecilius to his brother 
Leonard the latter was directed to give colonists of the first 
immigration who had brought five men to the colony two thousand 
acres of land subject to an annual quitrent of four hundred pounds 
of wheat. Colonists who emigrated to Maryland in 1634 — 1635 
bringing over ten men were to receive the same allotment of 
land at a rental of six hundred pounds of wheat annually. This 
proportion was to be continued for immigrants arriving in suc- 
ceeding years. 

These instructions further dealt with the question of the 
relationship of colonists of different religious faiths. There was 
to be absolute impartiality of treatment of Protestants and Catho- 
lics. The latter were to perform their religious ceremonies as 
privately as possible and refrain from becoming involved in reli- 
gious discussions. In the light of succeeding events, it may be 
confidently stated that Cecilius Calvert, possessed a liberality of 
mind as regarded religious freedom rare at that time, and that 
it was this liberality as much as the recognition of the advisa- 
bility of such a policy which caused Maryland to become the 
refuge of persecuted protestants and catholics alike. 



CHAPTER II. 

ATTACKS UPON THE MARYLAND CHARTER. 

Close upon the granting of the Maryland charter, the crown 
was presented with a petition from the governor, council and 
planters of Virginia, which maintained that the newly granted 
charter of Lord Baltimore included territory previously granted 
to Virginia, that part of this territory was inhabited by Virginians 
and that colony was now cut off from certain of its places of 
trade. ^ As the rights granted by the original Virginia charter 
of 1609 had reverted to the crown in 1624 when Virginia became 
a crown colony, the basis of the Virginia claim could scarcely 
be considered valid. In a hearing of the case before the Privy 
Council, Baltimore's grant was upheld and a royal order was 
sent to the Virginia government commanding that Maryland be 
afforded all lawful assistance. 

However these orders were not to be complied with without 
friction. William Claiborne, a member of the Virginia council 
and secretary of state of that colony, had established a trading 
post on Kent Island, in the Chesapeake Bay, within the Mary- 
land grant, under authority granted him by a patent issued in 
1631 under the Scotch signet. Cloberry and Company of London 
were interested in the post and furnished the capital for the enter- 
prise. They were to send out men, indented servants and freemen 
as well as suitable wares for trading with the Indians and to re- 
ceive in return beaver skins and corn for sale in England. 

Shortly before the settling of St. Mary's Claiborne was told 
that Kent Island was situated within the Maryland grant and 
that he would have to surrender it. But the Island had sent a 



' Proceedings of the Council, 1636—1667, pages 18 to 22. 



- 15 — 

member to the Virginia House of Burgesses and was considered 
a part of that colony. Therefore Claiborne requested instructions 
from the Virginia government as to the propriety of complying. 
The latter replied March 14, 1633—1634 that it failed to see any 
more reason for giving up Kent Island than for giving up any 
other part of the colony. ^ 

In his original instructions dated November 13, 1633 to his 
brother, Cecilius directed that friendly relations with Claiborne 
be established, that a curteous letter be written him assuring him 
of all encouragement in his enterprise consistent with the Mary- 
land charter. He was then to be invited to a conference. If he 
refused to come, he was to be left alone for a year, and the 
Lord Proprietor informed. 

Soon after the arrival of the colonists, the attitude of the 
Indians, hitherto friendly, suddenly changed. It was rumored that 
Claiborne had caused this change by telling the natives that the 
new colonists were Spaniards. This seems to have been false, 
but the Lord Proprietor was meanwhile informed and immediately 
sent instructions that Claiborne's settlement be seized and he 
himself held prisoner pending further instructions.* 

The capture of a pinnace belonging to Claiborne by the 
Maryland government for trading in Maryland waters without a 
license brought about hostilities. Claiborne in retaliation armed 
the shallop "Cockatrice" and manned her with thirty men under 
Ratcliffe Warren and empowered him to seize any vessel belong- 
ing to the St. Mary's government. On hearing of this. Gov. 
Calvert, sent out two pinnaces, the Sts. Helen and Margaret, 
under command of Thomas Cornwalleys. The opposing boats 
met April 23, 1635 in the Pocomoke River and the "Cockatrice" 
was taken. 3 May 10th another encounter occured. Claiborne 
favored further hostilities but the Virginia government feared the 
consequences of continuing to run counter to express royal in- 
structions and therefore sent commissioners to Maryland who 
made arrangements whereby Baltimore's authority was acquiesced 
in, if not formally acknowledged. 

' Proceedings of the Council 1667 to 1687—1688, page 164. 

^ Proceedings of the Council 1667 to 1687—1688, pages 165-168. 

• Proceedings of the Council 1667 to 1687-1688, page 169. 



— 16 - 

Toward the end of 1636 Cloberry and Co., dissatisfied with 
profits, sent George Evelin as their representative to Kent Island 
with full power to take over the post from Claiborne. The latter 
was to return to England to settle his accounts. Evelin was 
inclined to dispute Baltimore's title to Kent Island until a visit 
to St. Mary's where he was shown a copy of the Maryland 
charter and a copy of Claiborne's license convinced him that his 
claim could not hold. He therefore decided to recognize Mary- 
land's jurisdiction and obtained a commission from Calvert as 
"Commander" of the Island. An effort to induce the inhabitants 
to submit to Maryland authority failed. Evelin then proposed that 
Gov. Calvert reduce the Island by force. In December 1637 a 
Maryland force of forty men made a surprise landing on Kent 
Island and captured the Island without bloodshed. 

Evelin made no effort to safeguard the interests of the in- 
habitants, but on the contrary appropriated to his own use 
equipment belonging to the settlement valued at from ^''8,000 
to ^10,000.^ His mal-administration caused a revolt which 
necessitated a second reduction of the Island. However by 1640 
the Kent Islanders had taken oath of fidelity to the Maryland 
government and had had their property grants confirmed to them. 
Meanwhile Evelin had become the owner of a manor in Mary- 
land and Claiborne absent in England had been deprived of all 
his possessions in the province by a bill of attainder passed by 
the Maryland Assembly. ^ Opposition from that quarter thus seemed 
to have been effectively crushed, but this reverse merely marked 
the beginning of a long period of persistent opposition on the 
part of Claiborne. 

The charter continued to be the object of open and covert 
attack. In order to quiet opposition for all time King Charles I. 
in 1637 confirmed his grant and ordered the Commissioners of 
Plantations to countenance no commission which unfavorably 
affected the rights of Baltimore. He himself would prevent the 
passage of any "quo warranto" proceedings designed to over- 
throw or nullify any clause of the Maryland charter. But de- 

» Beginnings of Maryland 1631—1639. Bernhard C. Steiner. 
* Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, 1637 — 1639 to 1664, 
pages 23—24. 



— 17 — 

spite this confirmation, the charter was to experience three quarters 
of a century of persistent and often successful attack. 

Toward the close of 1643 Richard Ingle, commander of the 
merchant ship "Reformation" appeared in St. Mary's harbor. He 
was arrested while in port for violent and treasonable speeches 
against the king. Arrested by the Maryland authorities, he was 
released by Capt. Thomas Cornwalleys. The latter, appointed 
Captain-general of the province on Gov. Calvert's departure for 
England in April 1643, was the chief military figure in the colony. 
He had commanded the forces against Claiborne, concluded 
peace with the Naticoke Indians and led an expedition against the 
Susquehannoughs. But he had become disaffected through the 
Lord Proprietor's failure to grant certain concessions to the Assembly 
and his policy of restricting the rights of the Roman Church. His 
action with regard to Ingle caused considerable resentment in 
the colony. When brought to trial he was fined 1000 pounds 
of tobacco. ^ 

Ingle returned the following year and was immediately de- 
tained by the authorities, but released on his promise to deposit 
a barrel of powder and four hundred pounds of shot as security 
for appearing in February to answer charges but he left the 
colony, without keeping his promise, taking Cornwalleys with him. 

At this time Claiborne was secretly visiting Kent Island and 
seeking to incite a rebellion, assuring the inhabitants that he held 
a commission from the King. Soon after. Ingle returned from 
England in command of an armed ship and with letters of marque 
and reprisal from Parliament. Claiborne and Ingle, drawn together 
by the common desire to avenge themselves upon the Maryland 
government, joined forces, enlisted such elements of disaffection 
and credulity as they could prevail upon to recognize their 
authority, seized St. Mary's and dispossessed the proprietary 
government. Governor Calvert and the members of his govern- 
ment were compelled to flee to Virginia, where they remained 
for two years, Claiborne and Ingle meanwhile holding full sway 
in Maryland. Their rule was a succession of imprisonment, 
plunder and violence. They seized tobacco, corn and cattle, dis- 



Proceedings of the Council, 1636 to 1667, page 167. 



— 18 — 

mounted and disposed of machinery, and broke up the Roman 
Catholic missions. Even the house and plantations of Ingle's 
benefactor and friend, Thomas Cornwalleys, were pillaged. But 
reaction soon set in and at the end of two years Gov. Calvert 
organized a force of Maryland and Virginia soldiers, marched on 
St. Mary's and drove out the Claiborne and Ingle government, 
but both the insurgent leaders escaped. Ingle was later prosecuted 
in England and answered with an address to Parliament that he 
had plundered only "malignants and papists" in order to relieve 
the oppressed Protestants, a flimsy excuse as the Protestants in 
the province were in great majority. 

The trend of events in England at this time convinced the 
Lord Proprietor of the advisability of avoiding all possibility of 
giving offence to the Puritan Parliament of England. He therefore 
removed Gov. Greene, a Roman Catholic, whom Gov. Calvert 
had appointed shortly before his death in 1647, and replaced him 
by William Stone, a Protestant and friend of Parliament. Thus 
attacks on the government on the pretext of religious hostility 
could no longer be urged. But in November 1650, Gov. Stone 
went to Virginia for a few days and during his absence, Greene, 
his substitute, proclaimed Charles II. heir to the English throne.^ 

The Virginia Assembly went further, denouncing the execution 
of Charles I. and proclaiming his son heir to the throne. In addition 
it was made treason to utter anything against the house of Stuart 
or in favor of a Puritan Parliament. Virginia's unyielding attitude, 
when brought to the attention of the home government, led to 
the issuance of a parliamentary commission designed to coerce 
her into acceptance of the turn of events. Maryland was likewise 
included, but the Lord Proprietor showed that there was no 
opposition to the Puritan government in Maryland, that the 
proclamation of Charles II. as king was the unwarranted act of 
the substitute governor during the absence of the regular governor. 
Maryland was therefore omitted from the commission. Yet a single 
passage referred to "all the plantations within the Bay of Ches- 
apeake ", thus including Maryland. It seems likely that Claiborne 
was responsible for this, especially as he was appointed one of 



' Proceedings of the Council 1636 to 1667, pages 243, 244. 



— 19 - 

the four commissioners for the reduction of the two provinces. 
Virginia was immediately reduced and brought under the control 
of the commissioners and in 1652 Maryland suffered the same fate. 

Gov. Stone was removed and then reappointed, after the 
representatives of the Lord Proprietor in the Council had been 
removed and arrangements made for legal processes to run in 
the name of the "Keepers of the Liberties of England".^ 

Upon Cromwell's dissolution of Parliament in 1653 and his 
assumption of the role of protector, he was proclaimed in Mary- 
land. Cromwell and the Puritan army now composed the govern- 
ment of England, Parliament and with it, the Keepers, were no 
more. Therefore authority delegated by the Keepers in the parlia- 
mentary commission to Claiborne and the remaining three com- 
missioners was no longer valid. Baltimore acted on this theory 
and undertook to regain control of his province. He instructed 
Stone to exact the customary oath of fidelity to him of all taking 
up lands and to see that legal processes ran in his name as was 
the case up to the time of the parliamentary commissioners. - 

Stone succeeded in resuming his duties as governor, but a 
military force under Commissioners Claiborne and Bennett marched 
upon Maryland, compelled his resignation, and placed Capt. 
William Fuller, a Puritan of the settlement of Providence, with 
nine other commissioners in charge of the government. When 
the Lord Proprietor was informed, he rebuked Stone for surrend- 
ering with so little resistance and directed him to resume office. 
Stone thereupon collected a military force of a hundred and 
thirty men and set out for Providence, Puritan headquarters. But 
a land attack under Fuller at the head of one hundred and 
seventy five men combined with the fire of two merchant vessels 
lying in the Severn river resulted in the complete defeat of the 
Lord Proprietor's forces. 

In 1656 Baltimore succeeded in securing an order for the 
restitution of his property from the Protector and the following 
year an agreement between Commissioner Bennett and Baltimore 
provided for the complete restoration of the Maryland government.^ 

' Proceedings of the Council 1636 to 1667, page 271. 

* Proceedings of the Council 1636 to 1667, page 300. 

* Proceedings of the Council 1636 to 1667, page 332 on. 



— 20 — 

This marked the end of Claiborne's active opposition to the 
Maryland government. He had however been the chief obstacle 
to the peaceful development of the colony during the first twenty 
years of its existence. 

In July 1656 Jcsias Fendall was appointed governor of the 
province to succeed William Stone. A short period of quiet then 
set in. But during the session of the Assembly of 1659 — 1660 an 
internal conspiracy was aimed at the Lord Proprietor's authority. 
Acting on the theory that the provincial Assembly was a minia- 
ture parliament, the Lower House notified the governor and 
Council that it was the opinion of that body that it held power 
independently of any power outside of the province. The members 
of the Council were then informed that they might take seats in 
the Lower House but that the delegates of the latter could not 
recognize them as having any power as the Upper House or 
Council. Gov. Fendall and several members of the Council 
acquiesced in this point of view, the former surrendering his com- 
mission as governor and receiving a new one from the Assembly. 
An act was then passed making it criminal for any one to disturb 
the existing government. In addition Fendall issued a proclamation 
providing for recognition of no authority except that of the King 
and the Assembly. Baltimore was thus entirely unrepresented. 
What led the conspirators to this action is not apparent. It seems 
to have been a mere intrigue for power. Soon after, Charles II. 
became king and the Lord Proprietor obtained letters from him 
confirming his authority. He thereupon sent his brother, Philip 
Calvert, to the province as governor and on his arrival the Fendall 
government collapsed of itself and the legally constituted govern- 
ment of the Proprietor was restored without resistance.* The 
succeeding twenty years held no menace to the charter. 

In 1675 Cecilius, Second Lord Baltimore died and was suc- 
ceeded by his son Charles. The former had successfully led the 
colony through the dangers and attacks of more than forty years 
and by his judgment and talent for government had firmly estab- 
lished the colony. 

Charles, third Lord Baltimore, though determined and experi- 
enced in government, lacked the insight and tact of his father. 

' Proceedings of the Council, 1636—1667, pages 392—399. 



21 — 

He was constantly at the head of a minority and though generally 
successful in attaining his ends it was often at the cost of his 
popularity. His private purse and his personal interests were 
paramount; the future of the colony and his people's welfare 
were secondary. 

The grant of Pennsylvania in 1681 to William Penn brought 
with it fresh complications for Maryland. Pennsylvania's southern 
frontier was to be measured "by a circle drawn at twelve miles 
distance from New Castle, northward and westward to the begin- 
ning of the fortieth degree of north latitude, and thence by a 
straight line westward". 

Before the charter had been granted it was agreed that the 
40th parallel, Maryland's northern boundary, should be respected. 
It was later found that Newcastle was twenty miles south of the 
fortieth degree. But Penn then refused to accept the 40th parallel 
as the boundary. When he proposed that Baltimore move his 
southern and northern boundaries thirty miles south in order that 
Pennsylvania might have access to Chesapeake Bay^ it became 
evident that a water outlet was the reason for his unwillingness 
to respect Baltimore's prior claim. Two conferences between the 
two proprietors resulted in no agreement. 

Penn had likewise received a deed of enfeoffment from the 
Duke of York, for the territory from the west bank of the Con- 
necticut River to the eastern shore of the Delaware granted him 
by his brother Charles II., on his restoration. Prior to granting 
this land to Penn, the Duke of York had reduced the Swedish 
and Dutch settlements on both sides of the Delaware and thereafter 
claimed the land on both banks, although the west bank was 
within the Maryland grant. 

After the unsuccessful efforts to settle this question Baltimore 
left for England in 1684 to plead his case before the king. Soon 
after his arrival the duke of York whose friendship Penn enjoyed 
became King James II. The latter referred the case to the commis- 
sioner of plantations and trade with appropriate instructions. A 
judgment was returned adjudging the land lying between Delaware 
Bay and extending from the latitude of Cape Henlopen north to 



Proceedings of the Council, 1667 to 1787—1788, pages 374—394. 



— 22 — 

the 40th degree, to the crown. The king then confirmed Penn 
in his possessions. But the northern boundary was not settled 
and as long as Baltimore's charter held there could be no doubt 
of his prior jurisdiction. Penn therefore decided to use his in- 
fluence with the king to find a means of insuring his claim to 
the disputed territory. The result was the issuance of a writ of 
*'quo warranto" in April 1687 to nullify the Maryland charter, 
but before it had been executed the revolution of 1688 which 
saw the flight of James II. and the advent of William and Mary 
took place and the charter remained unimpaired. The controversy 
thereafter declined into a private dispute. 

A messenger despatched to Maryland by Baltimore with in- 
structions to have William and Mary proclaimed died en route. ^ 
Meanwhile they had been proclaimed in Virginia and New Eng- 
land ; Maryland alone seemed to be unwilling to accept the change. 
This fact lent color to a rumor in March 1689 that the Maryland 
Catholics had entered into a conspiracy with the Indians to murder 
all Protestants in the province. Enemies of the Proprietors had 
on former occasions tried to stir up the people by similar rumors, 
but without success. But with the failure of the Maryland govern- 
ment to proclaim the Protestant monarchs, William and Mary, 
after a revolution which put to flight the Roman Catholic King 
James II., there was no difficulty in securing the ear of many 
of the Protestants. There were no untoward events at the 
moment, but a Protestant Association was formed with John 
Coode at its head. The latter had been a minister who had 
foresworn his calling, later openly attacking Christianity and the 
church. 

Soon after the March rumor, a report was spread that the 
government buildings were being fortified. Coode and some of 
the Associators went to investigate. On arriving they seized the 
records and took prisoner the deputy governor and a force of 
eighty men that he had been able to collect. The association then 
took over the goverment. William and Mary were proclaimed 
and addresses were sent to the King explaining that the Asso- 
ciators had felt obliged to do this in the interests of the crown. 



Proceedings of the Council, 1687—1688 to 1693, pages 113, 114, 



— 23 - 

In addition a list of grievances were sent to the crown. It was 
maintained ttiat under the Proprietor none but Roman Catholics 
held office, that the Roman Church was encouraged whereas the 
Church of England was utterly neglected; that freedom of elec- 
tions was violated; that the proprietor used his power of veto 
to an unjustifiable extent and that excessive fees were charged 
by government officers.^ It was true that Charles, third Lord 
Baltimore had effectively alienated all sympathy by his selfish 
regime. The chief offices were filled by members of his family, 
who were Roman Catholic, although the majority of the people 
were Protestant; he had been guilty of summoning only onehalf 
of the delegates elected to the Lower House on the plea of 
economy but in reality to exclude those who opposed him ; and 
he had vetoed bills several years after they had been passed. But 
these were mistakes of policy rather than violations of his charter. 

But William was eager to bring the colonists under the crown 
and augment the royal revenues so that he might have greater 
freedom of action for his European policies. The murder of John 
Payne, a collector of customs in Maryland, the second incident 
of the kind, the state of affairs with the Protestant associators, 
and Baltimore's Roman Catholic faith, made him feel that this 
was a favorable opportunity for bringing Maryland under the crown. 

On August 21st, 1690 an order in council instructed the 
Attorney General to proceed against Lord Baltimore's charter with 
the object of canceling it. The opinion of Lord Chief Justice 
Holt given in June 1690 gives the status of the case perfectly. 
"I think it had been better if an inquisition had been taken, 
and the forfeitures committed by the Lord Baltimore had been 
therein found before any grant be made to a new governor. Yet 
since there is none, and it being in a case of necessity, I think 
the King may by his commission constitute a governor whose 
authority will be legal, though he must be responsible to the 
Lord Baltimore for the profits. If an agreement can be made 
with the Lord Baltimore, it will be convenient and easy for the 
governor that the King shall appoint. An inquisition may at any 
time be taken if the forfeiture be not pardoned, of which there 



Proceedings of the Council, 1687—1688 to 1693, pages 128—147. 



— 24 — 

is some doubt. "^ It was thus evident that the legal basis for 
the forfeiture of the charter was unjustified and that the procedure 
was purely a matter of policy. 

Thus in 1691 Maryland became a Royal Province. In 1693 
the capital was transferred from St. Mary's to Annapolis. This 
system continued until 1715. The Lord Proprietor continued to 
enjoy his territorial rights, but all officers were appointed by the 
crown. It exercised veto power, and all writs and legal processes 
rar> in its name. In brief, the Lord Proprietor's sovereign rights 
were no more. His position was simply that of owner of the land. 

On February 20, 1715, Charles, third Lord Baltimore died 
and was succeeded by his son, Benedick Leonard. But the latter 
was to bear the title only a few months, as he died soon after, 
whereupon his son Charles, a minor, succeeded to the title and 
estates. 

Benedick Leonard had publicly renounced the Roman faith 
and become a member of the Church of England a few years 
before and his children were then educated as members of the 
English Church. As the province had been taken from Charles, 
third Lord Baltimore, on account of his Roman faith, Lord Guil- 
ford, guardian of the 5th Lord Baltimore, petitioned that as this 
reason no longer held good, the province be restored to the 
present holder of the title, — a petition which was granted. But 
the period of royal government had witnessed political practises 
and developments which were to prove that the early proprietary 
rights had been considerably curtailed. 



' Proceedings of the Council, 1687—1688 to 1693, page 185. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE CHURCH AND TOLERATION IN 
MARYLAND. 

One of the motives impelling George Calvert, 1st Lord Bal- 
timore, to establish a colony in America was to provide a refuge 
for those persons who belonged to a religious communion other 
than that of the Established Church in England and were there- 
fore persecuted in England. Cecilius doubtlessly shared in large 
measure his father's liberality of mind. But the liberality which 
inspired this project would have been insufficient in itself to 
insure success without the skillful leadership and extraordinary 
tact of Cecilius, second Lord Baltimore. It has been urged that 
the latter's course of action was largely determined by practical 
considerations yet his sincerety is clearly demonstrated by his 
refusal to renounce his Roman faith, although such action would 
have instantly silenced his enemies and removed most of his 
difficulties. 

In his original instructions to his brother, Cecilius outlined 
the religious policy to be followed in the province. Roman Catholics 
were to perform their religious duties quietly and to refrain from 
all religious discussions. What was of more direct moment, 
the individuals charged with governing the colony, who were 
exclusively Roman Catholics, were to administer the province 
with absolute impartiality in the case of Protestants as well Roman 
Catholics. This was a policy unique at the time. 

Of the practical reasons leading to toleration Charles, third 
Lord Baltimore gave the following account in 1678: 

"At the first planting of this Provynce by my ffather Albeit 
he had an Absolute Liberty given to him and his heires to carry 



- 26 — 

thither any Persons out of the Dominions that belonged to the 
Crowne of England who should be found Wylling to goe thither 
yett when he came to make use of this Liberty He found very 
few who were inclyned to goe and seat themselves in those parts 
But such as for some Reason or other could not lyve with ease 
in other places And of these a great part were such as could 
not conforme in all particulars to the several Lawes of England 
relating to Religion Many there were of this sort of People who 
declared their Wyllingness to goe and Plant themselves in this 
Provynce so as they might have a General Toleration settled 
there by a Lawe by which all of all sorts who professed Chris- 
tianity in General might be at Liberty to Worship God in such 
Manner as was most agreeable with their respective Judgments and 
Consciences without being subject to any penaltyes whatsoever 
for their so doeing Provyded the Civill peace were preserved 
And that for the secureing the civill peace and preventing all 
heats Feuds which were generally observed to happen amongst 
such as differ in oppynions upon Occasion of Reproachful Nick- 
names and Reflecting upon each Other Oppynions It might by 
the same Lawe be made Penall to give any Offence in that kynde 
these were the conditions proposed by such as were willing to 
goe and be the first planters of this Provynce and without the 
complying with these conditions in all probability This provynce 
had never beene planted." ^ 

Reference to and quotations from a proclamation prohibiting 
disputes and controversies regarding religion, supposedly issued 
after the founding of Maryland, are found in the record of a case 
arising in 1638. The proclamation itself has never been found, 
but it seems to have been the established custom of the province 
to follow ont the spirit of Cecilius' instructions of April 1633, 
from the beginning. 

But two violations are recorded in the first fifteen years of 
the Province's existence. In 1638 William Lewis a Roman Ca- 
tholic, employed by Thomas Cornwalleys, found two of his fellow 
servants reading aloud from a book of sermons written by a 
Protestant minister. After railing against the author and Prot- 



Proceedings of the Council, 1667 to 1687—1688, page 267. 



— 27 - 

estant ministers in general, he insisted that they cease reading 
the book in question. Brought to trial before Gov. Calvert, 
Secretary Lewger and Thomas Cornwalleys, all three Roman 
Catholics, Lewis was fined five hundred pounds of tobacco for 
this offence and required to give security for future good behavior. 

The second case occured in 1642. Thomas Gerrard, a 
Roman Catholic, removed certain books and the key from a 
chapel at St. Mary's. The Protes^tants who worshipped there were 
thereby deprived of the use of the chapel. They appealed to 
the Assembly for the restitution of the af4i€ks removed, where- 
upon the Assembly issued an order that they be returned and 
imposed a fine of five hundred pounds of tobacco to be applied 
to the maintenance of the first minister who should arrive. ^ 
It thus appears that no Protestant minister had up to that time 
arrived in the province. 

The charter reserved to the Lord Proprietor the patronage 
and advowson of churches and authorized him to build and 
consecrate chapels of the English communion. No mention was 
made of establishing others, but on the other hand their founding 
was not specifically prohibited, and soon after the arrival of 
the first colonists a Roman Cathotic chapel was erected and 
consecrated. 

The Jesuit priests in the province were active and successful 
in their labors. They ministered to the religious needs of the 
colony and penetrated the wilderness, learned the Indian 
languages and converted many of the Indians. In 1640 the 
Chief of Pascataway, the sovereign of the neighboring tribes, 
was baptized and married according to the Christian rite and his 
seven year old daughter was brought to St. Mary's to be edu- 
cated. These were events of importance. The friendship of the 
neighboring Indians was thereby assured and Maryland was spared 
the Indian wars and massacres that constantly threatened the 
existence of other colonies. Yet these successes brought with 
them a certain danger. 

The Indians eager to express their appreciation of the 
Jesuits' labors offered them large tracts of land as gifts, which 



Proceedings and Acts of General Assembly, 1637—38 to 1664, page 119. 



— 28 — 

were accepted on behalf of the Jesuit Order. The question then 
arose as to whether these lands were to be considered as com- 
ing under ecclesiastical jurisdiction or under that of the proprietary 
government. The Jesuits claimed that all the rights that the 
church had at any time enjoyed under the canon law extended 
to these grants. As a part of this law, the Papal Bull "In Coena 
Domini", ecclesiastics and ecclesiastical property enjoyed complete 
exemption from secular jurisdiction.^ Further, control of marriage 
and testamentary cases were to be administered by the church. 
This would have meant the surrender of important rights by the 
Lord Proprietor in large sections of the province. Cecilius on 
learning of this immediately sent out John Lewger as Secretary 
of the Province with instruction as to the protection of his rights. 
Lewger, though a Roman Catholic, agreed with the Lord Proprietor 
that the recognition of the Church's claims could not fail to pre- 
judice the authority of the State, and consequently opposed the 
designs of the priests. 

Father Copley in a letter written to the Lord Proprietor in 
April 1638 complained of the Secretary's attitude and then outlined 
the claims of the church. These included the right to accept gifts 
from converted Indian chiefs given in gratitude for the salvation 
of their souls; the right of sanctuary for churches and priests' 
dwellings; the right of priests, their domestic servants and half 
their planting servants to exemption from public taxes, the rest 
of their servants and their tenants to be exempted by private 
agreement. It was also desired that the priests and their servants 
be allowed ^o go freely among the Indians and trade with them 
without license from the government, and that the surrender of 
any rights should be voluntary, on the part of the Church. Father 
Copley further added that the restriction of ecclesiastical liberty 
might be construed to constitute an offence sufficiently grave to 
endanger the standing in the church of any one who should be 
responsible for it. 

The claims were supported not alone by the priests but by 
a powerful minority in the province, chief of which was Thomas 
Cornwalleys, the military leader of the colony. He wrote Baltimore 



' C. C. Hall, The Lord Baltimore and the Maryland Palatinate- 



— 29 — 

that an unstained conscience was his first consideration and that 
he preferred to sacrifice everything he had rather than to prejudice 
in any way the honor of God and the Church. 

When this intelligence reached Baltimore he immediately had 
an interview with Father White who had recently arrived in England 
from the colony, and confirmed his impression of the seriousness 
of the state of affairs. Though a devout member of the Roman 
Church, the Lord Proprietor felt that successful government pre- 
cluded divided sovereignty between church and state. It was neces- 
sary that all the Maryland colonists, cleric and lay, should alike 
be amenable to the civil law. He therefore requested the Pope to 
remove the Jesuit missions from Maryland, a request which was 
granted, and later arranged with Father More, the Jesuit provincial 
in England for the surrender by the church of all claims to exemp- 
tion from the Maryland law, the release of all lands acquired from 
the Indians, and the recognition that no land grants were to be 
valid without proprietary sanction. Moreover, no priests were to 
be sent to the province without the Lord Proprietor's approval. 

The news came upon the priests like a thunder bolt out of 
a clear sky. Having assured his authority, Baltimore recalled the 
priests, sent out others and in 1641 issued new conditions of 
plantation. The latter introduced the English statutes of mortmain 
into the province, which provided that no land could by held by 
any corporation, or society, ecclesiastical or secular, without the 
specific sanction of the government. Meanwhile Governor Cal- 
vert and Secretary Lewger had won the support of the Assembly 
and had secured acts of Assembly giving jurisdiction over marriage 
and testamentary cases to civil officers. 

That toleration actually existed may be concluded from the 
fact that a number of different sects, when driven from their 
homes came to Maryland. In 1643 when Virginia enacted a law 
requiring all ministers to conform to the ritual of the Church of 
England and directing the governor and Council to compel all 
non-conformists, upon notice to leave the colony, the latter re- 
quested and obtained permission from the Maryland governor to 
settle in Maryland. Assured of freedom of worship, of no demands 
being made upon them save obedience to the laws, fidelity to 
the Lord Proprietor and the customary quit-rents, they came to 



— 30 — 

Maryland and founded the Puritan settlement of Providence on 
the Severn River. 

Following the "Plundering Time" of Claiborne and Ingle 
(1644—1646) Baltimore decided to allow no basis for future attack 
upon his government on the pretext that it was Roman Catholic. 
To that end he appointed William Stone, a Protestant, governor 
and an equal number of Protestants and Roman Catholics on the 
Council and introduced the following passage into the governor's 
oath of office: "I will not by myself nor any person, directly or 
indirectly trouble, molest, or discountenance any person what- 
soever in the said Province "professing to believe in Jesus Christ, 
and in particular any Roman Catholic for or in respect of his or 
her religion or in his or her free exercise thereof within the said 
Province so as they be not unfaithful to his said Lordship nor 
molest nor conspire against the civil government established here, 
nor will I make any difference of persons conferring offices, re- 
wards, or favors proceeding from the authority which his said 
Lordship had conferred upon me as his Lieutenant here for or in 
respect of their said religion respectively, but merely as I shall 

find them faithful and well deserving of his said Lordship and 

if any other officer or person whatsoever shall, during the time 
of my being his said Lordship's Lieutenant here without my consent 
or privily, molest or disturb any person within the province pro- 
fessing to believe in Jesus Christ merely for or in respect of his 
or her religion or the free exercise thereof, upon notice or com- 
plaint thereof made unto me I will apply my power and authority 
to relieve and protect any person so molested or troubled whereby 
he may have right done him for any damage which he shall suffer 
in that kind and to the utmost of my power will cause all and 
every such person or persons in that manner to be punished. "^ 

The members of the Council were also obliged to take the 
first provision of this oath. 

In 1649 the Assembly gave its attention to matters of reli- 
gion. Under the title, "An Act Concerning Religion " the penalty 
of death was prescribed for anyone denying Christ to be the Son 
of God, for unbelief in the Trinity, or for blasphemy against any- 



Proceedings of the council, 1636 to 1667, page 209 on. 



- 31 — 

one of the Trinity. The use of Heretic, Papist, Jesuit, Puritan, and 
similar terms in an opprobrious sense was forbidden under heavy 
penalties. Scurrilous remarks in connection with the Virgin Mary, 
the Apostles and Evangelists were to be punished by fine. "And 
wliereas the enforcing of the conscience in matters of religion 
hath frequently fallen out to be of dangerous consequence " no 
person professing faith in Jesus Christ was to be in " any way 
compelled to the belief or exercise of any religion against his or 
her consent". Anyone who wilfully wronged another professing 
faith in Christ on account of his religion was to pay treble dam- 
ages to the individual wronged and to forfeit twenty shillings. 
Swearing, drunkenness, unnecessary work or disorderly recreation 
on Sunday were forbidden. 

It may be justly stated that this act failed to provide complete 
toleration, yet in view of the world tendency of the epoch it was 
a step of no small importance. Its toleration extended only to a 
trinitarian form of Christianity. But in comparison with the policy 
in other parts of the Kingdom of England and its dominions, it 
was a great improvement. In England persecution of any religious 
communion except that of the Established Church was enforced 
by statute ; in Massachusetts worship according to the Church of 
England was forbidden, and in Virginia those who failed to con- 
form to the English ritual were expelled. In Maryland the form 
of worship was free at least, and in reality toleration became the 
settled policy of the province and remained constantly in effect 
except during such periods as the proprietary charter and author- 
ity were held in abeyance. 

Quakers, persecuted in England and in Massachusetts, in the 
latter colony even to the extent of being hanged, found Maryland 
a haven or refuge and came to the Province in large numbers. 
By the year 1661 there were so many that they held regular 
meetings in the province. In 1672 George Fox, founder of the 
sect, visited the Quakers established in Maryland and attended a 
large meeting at West River, Anne Arundel County, which lasted 
four days, and later another in Talbot which lasted five days. 

Instead of taking the oath of fidelity, they were allowed to 
take a modified oath, providing for submission to Lord Baltimore's 
authority and that of his legally constituted government. However 



— 32 — 

many refused to subscribe to this agreement and sought to per- 
suade others who had signed it, to renounce it. They refused 
to bear arms, take the juror's oath or give evidence in court, 
and sought to dissuade others from performing such acts. Their 
interpretation of being "governed by God's law and the light 
within them, and not by man's law" frequently brought them 
into conflict with the authorities in the province. Their attitude 
made the governor and Conncil feel that it was necessary to 
issue an order for the banishment of those among them who 
were insubordinate. Should they afterwards return they were „to 
be whipped from constable to constable until out of the province." ^ 
Thurston, one of the Quaker leaders was summoned to appear 
before the authorities for being in the province after banishment, 
but on his plea that he had not been out of the province and 
could therefore not return no judgment for "whipping him out 
of the province" could be given. 

A sect of quietists or mystics, called Labadists, after several 
forced migrations, finally found a resting place under the govern- 
ment of Maryland. - The founder of the sect, Jean de Labadie, 
a Frenchman, felt that it was his mission to restore the church 
to its pristine purity. He had been Jesuit, Calvinist and even 
held the Quaker doctrine of the inward illumination of the spirit. 
The property of the sect was held in common and as a part of 
its communistic ideas, the sect's views on marriage were somewhat 
unconventional. Peter Sluyter and Jasper Dankers in 1683 brought 
a number of Labadists from Wiewerd in Friesland, where the 
sect was then established, and settled on land secured from 
August Hermann of Bohemia Manor. They lived frugally under 
the harsh and arbitrary rule of Sluyter until 1698 when the 
property was divided and Sluyter who had succeeded in having 
the title to the land made out in his name, retained enough 
to make him wealthy. Twenty years later the sect seems to have 
disappeared. 

With the overthrow of proprietary authority in 1652 the 
government of Puritan commissioners immediately reversed the 



' Proceedings of the Council, 1636—1667, page 362. 

^ W. H. Browne, Maryland, History of a Palatinate, pages 133, 134. 



- 33 - 

policy of toleration. The first Assembly that met under the Puritan 
leader, William Fuller, passed a new "Act Concerning Religion". 
It repealed the act of 1649 and provided that no one of the 
Roman Catholic faith might be elected to represent the people 
in the Assembly, and that "none who profess and exercise the 
popish religion, commonly known by the name of the Roman 
catholic religion, can be protected in this province by the laws 
of England formerly established and yet unrepealed . . . but are 
to be restrained from the exercise thereof; therefore all and every 
person or persons concerned in the law aforesaid are required 
to take notice." It was further provided that "such as profess 
faith in God by Jesus Christ, though differing in judgment from 
the doctrine, worship and discipline publicly held forth, shall not 
be restrained from, but shall be protected in the profession of 
the faith and exercise of their religion, so they abuse not this 
liberty to the injury of others or the disturbance of the public 
peace on their part; provided that this liberty be not extended 
to popery or prelacy nor to such as under the profession of 
Christ hold forth and practice licentiousness."^ Thus Roman 
Catholics and members of the Church of England and any sects 
coming under the heading of "practicing licentiousness" were 
to be deprived of the free exercise of their religion. But after 
six years of Puritan rule, Cromwell restored the province to Charles, 
third Lord Baltimore, with the stipulation that the Toleration Act 
of 1649 should go into effect and remain so permanently. 

Meanwhile the standing of the Protestant clergy in Maryland 
was deplorable. For more than fifty years the Church of England 
had no organization whatever in the province and the sole 
provision for the payment of its clergy was by voluntary gifts. 
The Lower House, composed almost entirely of Protestants favored 
the enactment of a law for the maintenance of ministers, but the 
Upper House, composed of the Roman Catholic office holders 
would not hear of such a law, and the mere mention of it was 
sufficient to create stormy opposition from the Upper House. 
This difference in religious sentiment between the two Houses 
added an element of discord to the continual conflict of material 



Maryland Archives Proclamation of Assembly, 1637/38, 1664, p. 340. 

3 



— 34 — 

interests between the two houses. In 1676 the Rev. John Yeo 
drew the attention of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the fact 
that but three clergymen in the province were conformable to 
the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England. He sug- 
gested the advisability of imposing a tax for the maintenance of 
such ministers. The letter was referred to the Bishop of London, 
thence to Lord Baltimore. The latter stated in reply that three 
quarters of the province's inhabitants were Presbyterians, Indepen- 
dents, Anabaptists or Quakers, and that it was scarcely just to 
tax the majority of the population for the support of a church 
to which they did not belong. 

Yet the tide of events was destined to sweep aside such 
obstacles as well as the Lord Proprietor's clearly expessed char- 
tered right to the control of the church in his province. The 
establishment of royal government in the last decade of the 17th 
century brought with it a complete change of policy. The first 
Assembly under the Royal Government passed an act for the 
establishment in the povince of the Church of England. Each 
county of the province was to constitute a parish; vestrymen 
and a board of trustees were to be chosen and directed to build 
churches in their respective parishes; an annual tax of forty 
pounds of tobacco was to be imposed on all taxable persons for 
the support of the clergy of the Church of England. Supplementary 
acts were passed in 1694, 1695 and 1696. The last one provided 
"that the Church of England, within the province, shall enjoy 
all and singular her Rights, Privileges, and Freedoms, as it is 
now, or shall be at any time hereafter, established by Law in 
the Kingdom of England : And that his Majesty's Subjects of this 
Province shall enjoy all their Rights and Liberties, according to 
the Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom of England, in all Matters 
and Causes where the Laws of the Province are silent. " ^ This 
act introduced disabilities into the province which had caused 
many of the settlers to leave England and aroused opposition 
which was sufficiently strong to effect its disallowance by the king. 

The newly established church was weak and without organ- 
ization. The clergy therefore petitioned the Bishop of London 



Lower House Journal, July 3—10, 1696. 



— 35 - 

for a commissary or suffragan with sufficient power to firmly 
establish the church. This led to the appointment of Dr. Thomas 
Bray, who first spent some time in England securing parochial 
libraries and inducing ministers to go to the province. After the 
veto in 1699 of the church act of 1696, he hastened to the 
province to use what influence he might be able to exert for 
the passage of another. He was an individual of personality and 
soon acquired considerable influence over the Assembly. In 1700 
a bill was framed and passed in accordance with his ideas but 
it provided for the use of the Book of Common Prayer in every 
church or house of public worship in the province. This was 
opposed by Catholics, Quakers and Dissenters who prevailed upon 
the king to withhold his approval. During this year Dr. Bray 
held a visitation in Annapolis, disciplined a number of offenders 
and gave the church a favorable impulse toward better things. 
In 1701 — 1702 a bill drafted by Dr. Bray in accordance with the 
wishes of the home government passed the Assembly and became 
law, and remained in force with minor changes until the Revol- 
ution of 1776. 

This law contained provisions for the local government of 
the different parishes and for the appointment and induction of 
ministers by the governor. Ministers could hold but a single 
charge unless two adjacent parishes agreed to share the services 
of one. Freedom of worship and from all political disabilities was 
provided for Quakers and Protestant dissenters. 

The English Church and a scheme of organization to carry 
it on were thus established in the province. 

Bray returned to England soon after the passage of the Church 
Act of 1702 and tried to secure a parliamentary act providing for 
a suffragan bishop for Maryland. Its success depended upon the 
willingness of the newly appointed governor. Col. John Seymour, 
to forego the right of inducting ministers. The latter however felt 
that it was an effort to clip his authority and refused. 

Meanwhile the Protestant clergy were in many cases leading 
lives of flagrant immorality, and the Assembly felt that some re- 
straint should be imposed upon them. Accordingly a bill designed 
to meet the situation was introduced in the Assembly in Novem- 
ber 1708 and passed both Houses but the governor refused his 



— 36 — 

assent for the reason that he had received no instructions from 
the home government. In 1714 Gov. Hart, who had just arrived 
in the province, called a meeting of the clergy so that they might 
become better acquainted with one another. To his chagrin, several 
members of the vestries of different parishes asked him to hear 
charges against their ministers. As he had no ecclesiastical author- 
ity, he declined but wrote to the Bishop of London suggesting 
the appointment of Jacob Henderson and Christopher Wilkinson 
as commissaries, one for each shore. This recommendation was 
favorably acted upon, but the results were unfortunate. The former, 
tactless and overzealous, quickly aroused widespread hostility. 
Resentment against him reached a climax when he seized the 
letters of orders and license of the Rev. Mr. Hall. The latter im- 
mediately secured a warrant from the governor for their return. 
A bill was then introduced into the Assembly designed to establish 
some sort of disciplinary control for the church and clergy but 
the majority, though Protestants, were not members of the Church 
of England, and their recent experience had made them wary of 
conferring such authority. They therefore refused to pass the bill 
in question. 

Shortly after, the Bishop of London, invited the Rev. Mr. 
Colebatch to come to England from the province for the purpose 
of receiving consecration as suffragan of Maryland, but the Mary- 
land Assembly on learning of his proposed action would not 
permit him to leave. 

A bill for reducing the church tax from forty pounds per 
taxable person to thirty met with strenuous opposition from the 
clergy. After its passage Jacob Henderson was sent to England 
as their agent to secure the disallowance of the act. He was suc- 
cessful in his mission. At the same time he secured authority to 
act as commissary in the province. He made visitations, disciplined 
offenders and deprived one minister of his charge. His authority 
was then questioned, whereupon he showed his commission from 
the Bishop of London, as well as a copy of a commission obtained 
by the latter from George I making him diocesan of the province. 
But the Bishop's commission was faulty inasmuch as George II. 
was then King of England and the commission of his predecessor 
was no longer valid. Henderson was thus left without authority, 



— 37 — 

especially as the Bishop of London did not see fit to contest the 
Lord Proprietor's claims. He therefore ceased his efforts to act 
as commissary. 1 

His work in securing the disallowance of the bill of 1728 
was promptly undone by the Assembly which passed a new law, 
providing for the payment of but thirty pounds of tobacco to 
ministers, the rest to be paid at the rate of one bushel of wheat 
for forty two pounds of tobacco, one bushel of corn or oats for 
twenty pounds of tobacco, or one bushel of barley for twenty 
four pounds of tobacco. This was assented to by the governor 
and became law.* 

Prior to 1747 there was no provision as to the quality of 
tobacco to be paid the clergy. In general it was of the poorest 
quality. In 1696 the clergy complained, that their tobacco sold for 
one quarter to one half of what other tobacco sold for. This condi- 
tion was remedied in 1747 by the Tobacco Inspection Act which 
improved the value of tobacco to such an extent that many of 
the clergy soon came to be very well paid. 

But the lack of any competent authority to control the clergy 
was an insurmountable defect. Charles, 5*^ Lord Baltimore and 
Frederick, 6«h Lord Baltimore, held tenaciously to their proprietary 
right to appoint the clergy. Appointments were not made on the 
basis of character and fitness but were viewed as prizes to be 
given to friends. Under such conditions clergy of a superior type 
rarely found their way to the province. Unless a minister enjoyed 
the friendship of the Proprietor there was no opening for him. 
Moreover when a minister was once appointed, no agency could 
remove him. Immorality went unpunished and the standing of the 
clergy as a natural result was not high. 

In 1748 another attempt was made by the Lower House to 
create a body for disciplining the clergy. But Charles had given 
instructions against the transfer of his authority in this matter to 
anyone and the Upper House therefore refused to pass the bill. 

In 1768 the Assembly passed a bill to establish a spiritual 
court composed of the governor, three laymen and three clergy- 



' N. D. Mereness. Maryland as a Proprietary Province, page 450. 
' Ibid., pages 454—455. 



— 38 — I 

men, but Gov, Sharpe obeyed the Proprietor's instructions and 
vetoed it. Frederick who had succeeded his father in 1751 had 
in the second year of his administration ordered the governor to 
allow nothing to infringe his right of appointing and controlling 
the clergy. This policy had been consistently followed, but upon 
the rejection of the bill in 1768 the Lower House declared its 
determination to pass the bill at every session until it became law.^ 

This effort met with success in 1771. Every minister was 
compelled to take several oaths to the government within four 
months of induction. Otherwise he was to be dispossessed of his 
position. If absent thirty days uninterruptedly or sixty days in 
all in a single year he was to be fined ^ 10. Should the vestry 
lodge complaint with the governor, that its minister was leading 
a scandalous or immoral life, the governor was to appoint a com- 
mission composed of himself, if of the Church of England, if not, 
then the first member of the Council who was, and three ministers 
actively engaged in the province and three laymen of the Church 
of England. They were empowered in case of guilt, to admonish, 
suspend or deprive the offender of his living.^ 

The Inspection Act of 1747 was renewed periodically until 1770. 
At that time the Lower House favored a reduction of fees but the 
Upper House refused to agree. Neither House would recede from 
its position, so the governor issued a proclamation continuing the 
provision of the law of 1701 — 1702. The people were indignant over 
this act of the governor and everywhere resisted the collection 
of the tax. Shortly after some of the lawyers claimed that as the 
law had been passed by an Assembly chosen under writs of elec- 
tion and summons issued by King William who died before the 
Assembly met, and as a new election had not been held under 
writs of election and summons of Queen Anne, the law was not 
valid. ^ Many individuals refused to pay the tax and lawsuits that 
resulted were decided by the courts in favor of the people. 
But in 1773 the Assembly passed an act giving the clergy thirty 
pounds or four shillings for each individual instead of forty pounds 
of tobacco and the opposition of the people subsided. 

' N. D. Mereness, Maryland as a Proprietary Province, page 452. 

^ Ibid., pages 452-453. 

^ Maryland Gazette, September 10, 1772. 



— 39 - 

During the two last colonial wars between France and Eng- 
land (1740—1748 and 1756—1763) there had been considerable 
agitation against the Roman Catholics who were charged with 
sympathy with the French on account of their religion. Several 
efforts were made at these times to impose double and special 
taxes upon the property of Roman Catholics, but such acts were 
in most cases disallowed by the governor. 

On one occasion the Lower House even passed "An Act for 
the Security of his Majesty's Dominions and to prevent the growth 
of Popery in this Province" which provided for the confiscation 
and sale of property belonging the Roman Catholics, the proceeds 
of which should be used for defending the province against the 
French.^ But it failed to pass the Upper House. After the fourth 
colonial war this spirit died down throughout the province and 
thereafter nothing was heard of differences of that kind. 

Though questions of religion and toleration had taken much 
of the time and attention of the people of Maryland, the church 
itself had exerted comparatively little positive influence in shaping 
life in Maryland. The Roman Church, though counting many of 
the richest and most influential families of the province among 
its members, had not become powerful as an institution. This had 
been prevented by the original policy of Cecilius. The Protestant 
sects were so divided and so ineffectively organized as to have 
little influence. The Established Church, corrupted by the lack of 
a proper system of appointing ministers and of ecclesiastical dis- 
cipline enjoyed little prestige. 

Yet the failure to esablish in its entirety the church system 
of the old world had at least a certain compensation in causing 
the people to look upon themselves as the source of authority, 
even in matters relating to the church, and thereby led to a 
strengthening of the tendencies toward democracy and popular 
government. 



Lower House Journal, May 30, 1754. 



CHAPTER IV. 

FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND INFLUENCES 
TOWARD DEMOCRACY. 

The Maryland charter had centered all power in government 
in the hands of the Lord Proprietor. He was given the exclusive 
power of creating offices, filling them and of prescribing their 
responsibilities and duties. Of the six proprietors but two visited 
the colony and both for short periods. The third Lord Baltimore 
spent the years from 1675 to 1684 in the province as Lord 
Proprietor and the fifth Lord Baltimore spent a year there dur- 
ing 1732—1733. As it was impossible to administer the colony 
from England it became necessary to delegate authority to re- 
presentatives within the province, in the interest of a satisfactory 
administration. 

The chief office created in the colony was that of governor. 
The individual appointed to this office also held the title of ad- 
miral and lieutenant-general. He was further made chancellor 
and entrusted with the Lord Proprietor's official seal which enabled 
him to issue, grants of land, commissions for office, pardons, 
proclamations and writs. As chief justice he was the dominant 
figure in the province's judicial administration. He was further 
empowered to appoint all officers necessary for the proper ad- 
ministration of justice and the enforcement of measures necessary 
for good government. Finally, he was empowered to convene 
the legislative assembly, prepare laws for its consideration, and 
agree to bills which it passed, and when necessary, to adjourn, 
prorogue or dissolve the assembly. 

A Council was also provided for. Its members were theo- 
retically appointed by the Lord Proprietor, but in reality, the 



- 41 — 

recommendation of the governor in this matter was the deter- 
mining influence. Its relation to the governor was to be similar 
to that between king and privy council. All important decisions 
were to be arrived at by the governor in consultation with the 
Council. The councillors were to assist the governor with advice 
and in administrative work, and were to keep secret all matter 
of state. They, as well as the governor, were bound by oath 
to defend and maintain the rights of the Lord Proprietor and 
were not to accept office except at his hands. ^ Their term of 
office was to continue only during the pleasure of the Lord 
Proprietor. They were thus in every particular sworn to his ser- 
vice and dependent upon his will. 

The Council was at first small, consisting of but three 
members in 1636. By 1681 it had been increased to nine; and 
after the establishment of royal government, twelve was the 
maximum, though there were rarely more than nine or ten. 
Changes in the Council rarely occured except by death or 
resignation. 

In the beginning the duties of the Council, as is evident 
from its relation to the governor, touched every domain of 
government. 

But with the growth of the power and pretensions of the 
legislative assembly, its activities were curtailed. After the Revo- 
lution of 1688 offices were created by act of Assembly, likewise 
the fixing of fees for government services, the imposition of 
taxes, and many minor activities which had formerly been regu- 
lated by the governor and Council. 

Practically all the great offices of the province were con- 
centrated in the hands of members of the Council. Its members 
were justices of the principal court and members of the legis- 
lative assembly; after 1650, they composed the Upper House of 
Assembly. The positions of secretary of the province, commis- 
sary general, attorney general, judge of the land office and 
provincial treasurer, were held by members of the Council, as 
well as many minor offices. It frequently happened that they held 
more offices than they could administer personally and as a con- 



Proceedings of the Council, 1636—1666, pages 209 214. 



— 42 — 

sequence disposed of certain of their offices to deputies for a 
consideration, a practice wtiich the Lower House protested against 
on a number of occasions but to no avail.' 

Less than a year after the founding of St. Mary's Gov. Cal- 
vert, called an assembly of the freemen of the province, which 
met February 26, 1634 — 1635. This Assembly enacted a number 
of laws which were sent to the Lord Proprietor for his assent. 
But he refused to give it, as he desired to initiate legislation' 
himself, as provided by the charter, which read that the Lord 
Proprietor should have ''free, full and absolute power, ... to 
ordain, make and enact laws, ... of and with the advice, assent, 
and approbation of the freemen of the said province." 

A second Assembly was called two years later and met 
January 25, 1737—1738. Personal writs of summons had been 
issued by the governor, to members of the Council and a few 
other persons. All freemen were likewise permitted to take their 
seats in the Assembly or send proxies.^ At this Assembly a body 
of laws from the Lord Proprietor was presented for acceptance 
as a whole and without amendment.' But these laws, which 
provided for a complicated system of government largely feudal 
in its nature were rejected by the Assembly. Such laws as the 
people felt were suitable were then taken from this body of laws 
and passed. This was contrary to instructions and the Lord Pro- 
prietor refused his assent when they were presented for his approval. 

A letter from the governor and secretary of the province 
assured him that his draft of laws was not suitable to the newly 
settled colony and advised his acceptance of the Assembly's laws. 
Cecilius then forwarded instructions to Gov. Calvert to assent to 
such laws as the Assembly should pass providing they were 
reasonable and not contrary to the laws of England, reserving 
to himself, however, the right of ultimate veto.* The right of 
initiating legislation thus passed to the Assembly. This meant 



' Lower House Journal, November 2, 1709, July 1st, 1714, May 14, 1750. 

2 Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, 1637—1638 to 1664, 
page 1 on. 

' Proceedings of the Council, 1636—1667, page 51. 

* Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, 1637—1638 to 1664, 
page 31. 



- 43 - 

that the people should have a shaping influence upon legislation 
proposed, that bills could be introduced as circumstances lequired 
and that they might go into effect without unwarranted delay. 

That the Lord Proprietor attached considerable importance 
to this point may be assumed from the fact that ten years later 
he sought to regain this right. At this time he sent out a body 
of sixteen laws, with the promise that if they were passed una- 
mended as perpetual laws, he would allow the province to collect 
and retain onehalf of the customs duties levied on tobacco ship- 
ped in Duch ships. The Assembly declined to pass this body 
of laws stating in reply: „We do humbly request your Lordship 
hereafter to send us no more such bodies of laws, which serve 
to little other end than to fill our heads with suspicious jealousies 
and dislikes of that which we verily know not." ^ 

After this failure the Lord Proprietor made no further effort 
to exercise his right but yielded it to the Assembly without further 
dispute. 

In December 1638 writs of election were issued for the third 
Assembly. These were directed to each of the hundreds and to 
one manor. The former were instructed to each send two or 
more delegates, whereas no number was specified in the case of 
the manor. The members of the Council and three other individ- 
uals also received writs of summons.' 

From 1641 to 1650 the governor summoned the freemen to 
appear at Assembly either in person, to send delegates or proxies. 
In 1650 the different hundreds decided to send delegates, varying 
from one to three, and from that time on, the representative sys- 
tem was in force in the province. 

The General Assembly composed of governor. Council and 
freemen was unwieldy. In 1642 the delegates to the Assembly 
therefore requested that it be divided into two houses, the repre- 
sentatives of the people to form one and the governor and Council 
the other.^ Gov. Calvert refused to grant this request. However 



' Ibid., pages 240—243. 

* Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, 1637 — 1638 to 1664. 
pages 27—28. 

^ Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, 1637 — 1638 to 1666, 
page 130. 



_ 44 — 

two years after his death (1647) Gov. Stone accepted such an 
arrangement and the first Assembly that met in 1650 passed an 
act providing for a system of two houses. The Lord Proprietor 
not only gave the act his approval but forbade its being changed. 
The same act further provided that no law could be enacted or 
repealed without the concurrence of both Houses. The impor- 
tance of this advance in development toward selfgovernment can- 
not be overestimated. It gave the representatives of the people 
control over an integral and vital part of the government, a con- 
cession which came to be the most powerful weapon for the pro- 
tection of their interests. 

In 1654 the unit of representation became the county instead 
of the hundred. These two local divisions had at first been fixed 
by the Council. After 1689 they were fixed by acts of Assembly 
in the case of counties and by acts of the county courts in the 
case of hundreds. In 1670 the town of St. Mary's was given re- 
presentation in the Assembly, but her representatives were given 
to Annapolis in 1708, fifteen years after the latter had super- 
seded the former as capital of the province. 

Prior to 1670 no qualification for voting or for becoming a 
delegate to the Assembly was necessary other than that of being 
a freeman. Considerable numbers of the colonists had come to 
the province as "redemptioners", — individuals who had had their 
way paid to the province and in discharge for this debt, were 
bound out to service for a term of years, generally from two to 
five. At the end of this period they became freemen. However in 
1670 a property qualification of fifty acres of land or a visible state 
of ^ 40 sterling was fixed as the necessary minimum ior eligibility 
to vote or for election to the Assembly.^ An act of 1678 which 
continued this restriction was vetoed, but on the establishment 
of royal government, it again went into effect and remained with 
but minor changes during the whole proprietary period. 

The same bill of 1670 provided for the election of four dele- 
gates from each county. But in spite of the law. Gov. Charles 
Calvert began the practice of summoning but half the delegates 
elected, on the plea of economy but in reality to exclude dele- 



Proceedings of the Council, 1667 to 1687—1688, page 77. 



- 45 - 

gates opposed to his plans. In 1676 a petition signed by the 
delegates and people requested that a fixed number of delegates 
be elected and summoned and that in case of a vacancy, a writ 
should be immediately issued so that the vacancy might be filled.^ 
Charles Calvert, who had become Lord Proprietor the preceding 
year agreed to this. During the session of 1678 an act of Assembly 
was passed providing for the election of four delegates from each 
county and two from the city of St. Mary's, all of whom were 
to appear at Assembly without the formality of individual sum- 
mons. When the session of 1681 was called, the message of 
the Lord Proprietor contained the veto of this act, and directed 
that only two delegates be elected for the succeeding Assembly.* 
But the Assembly then about to meet had eleven vacancies, and 
the Lower House brought this fact to the attention of the Lord 
Proprietor adding that they considered it proper that the warrants 
for filling the vacancies should be issued by their speaker as was 
the practice in the House of Commons.^ 

They declined to proceed to business until these vacancies 
were filled. After considerable delay the Lord Proprietor instructed 
the secretary of the province to issue writs for filling the vacancies, 
In this way each county was fully represented. However, only 
two delegates from each county were elected the following year 
in accordance with his instructions. Under the royal government, the 
first Assembly passed an act prescribing the election of four dele- 
gates, and thereafter four were regularly elected. At the same 
time, the Speaker of the Lower House was given the privilege 
of instructing the secretary to issue writs for filling vacancies in 
the Lower House. This privilege was confirmed by an act of 
Assembly of 1718. Thereafter there was never further debate 
over this question. 

The Lower House sought more and more to model its pro- 
cedure upon that of the House of Commons. Thus the valuable 
rights secured by that body during the Revolution of 1688 awoke 
in Maryland the desire to have the same rights. The chief of 



' Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, 1667 — 1676, pages 
507, 508. 

» Proceedings of Council, 1671—1681, page 378 on. 

* Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, 1678—1683, page 114. 



— 46 - 

these was parliamentary control over the imposition of taxes and 
the expenditure of public monies. Acts of Parliament were neces- 
sary for both, and as it was the practice of that body to make 
appropriation for limited periods, it was necessary that it be regu- 
larly convened. 

With the exception of the periods from 1666 to 1669, 1671 — 
1674, and 1681 — 1684, it was rare for a year to pass without a 
session of Assembly in the province. After the period of royal 
government, when annual assemblies had been the practice, 
there were but three years during the period from 1715 — 1775 
that no Assembly met. Except during two periods of six years 
each (1671 — 1676 and 1676 — 1681) during the administration of 
the 3rd Lord Baltimore, elections took place at regular intervals 
of three years. In 1697, the Assembly was dissolved by Gov. 
Nicholson after a period of slightly less than three years. In 
doing this he stated that it was frobidden by law in England 
that the same Parliament should continue without a new election 
for more than three years and he considered it wise to follow 
the same rule in Maryland. This precedent was then regularly 
followed.^ 

Prior to the establishment of royal government, the governor 
and Council had at times expressed their disapproval of certain 
delegates in the Lower House and had thereby effected their 
unseating, but after that time, the Lower House admitted no such 
interference and considered itself the sole judge of the qualifi- 
cations and election of its members. In order to maintain its 
entire independence of the proprietor, it would allow none of 
its members to accept office at his hands, and as part of this 
policy expelled four of its members in 1734^ and two in 1750* 
for accepting office. 

In accordance with English precedent financial bills originated 
in the popular house of Assembly. During the first century of 
the province's history financial disputes were regulated by mes- 
sages and conferences between the two Houses but after 1740 
the Lower House refused to recognize the right of the Upper 

• Lower House Journal, June 11, 1697. 
^ Lower House Journal, March 25, 1734. 
^ Lower House Journal, May 8 and 9, 1750, 



— 47 - 

House to amend financial bills and declined even to confer with 
it concerning financial matters. 

Until 1681, Charles, 3rd Lord Baltimore recognized no time 
limit within which his veto of an act of Assembly should be given. 
But stormy protest growing out of his action in 1669 and again 
in 1671 when he vetoed acts of Assembly which had been in force 
several years,^ resulted in his agreement to approve or veto all 
acts passed by the Assembly before the end of the session, if 
in the province, and within eighteen months, if elsewhere. y 

The judicial system as originally established was composed 
exclusively of appointees of the Lord Proprietor. Gov. Leonard 
Calvert, was chief justice of the province and the members of 
Council were associate justices. The governor in addition had 
the privilege of creating such further minor offices as were neces- 
sary for the proper execution of justice. He also had the right 
to try and judge all cases, civil and criminal, except such as 
involved the loss of life, limb or freehold, when at least two 
members of the Council should take part in the trial.- 

The Assembly had tried all kinds of cases prior to its division 
into two Houses in 1650. Thereafter the Upper House became 
purely a court of appeals and after 1692 this jurisdiction was 
transferred to the governor and Council whereas the Lower House 
exercised no judicial power, other than the trying of minor of- 
ficers for failing to perform their duties properly. 

In 1638 was constituted the county court known after 1642 
as the provincial court, composed of the governor as chief justice 
and the members of the Council as associate justices.^ Next to 
the Upper House of the legislature this was the supreme court. 
But they were in reality one and the same thing, as both were 
composed of the governor and Council, though after 1675 the 
governor no longer formed part of the Upper House.* There 
was scant likelihood of an appeal from one being reversed by 



' Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, 1666—1676, page 161. 

* Proceedings of the Council, 1636-1667, page 53. 

^ Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, 1637 — 1539 to 1664, 
pages 47—49. 

* Proceedings of the Council, 1671 — 1681, page 10. 



- 48 — 

the other. The local county courts were likewise controlled in 
the beginning by these officers. 

Until 1661 the governor was justice of the chancery court; 
from 1661 until 1689, Philip Calvert held that office. Until 
1684 admiralty cases were handled by the provincial court, but 
in that year the admiralty court was separately constituted. In 
1638—1639 an act of Assembly empowered the secretary of the 
province to act as judge of probate ; this continued in force until 
1763 when this office was transferred to the chancellor. 

As so many offices were concentrated in the hands of a few 
officers appointed by the Lord Proprietor, during his pleasure 
and sworn to the defence of his interests, it was not to be won- 
dered at that the judicial system was regarded as the guarantee 
of privilege rather than as the bulwark of justice. The people 
took the same attitude toward the entire office holding class. The 
primary object of those who formed this class was personal enrich- 
ment. The permanent welfare of the colony was a minor conside- 
ration. Their idea was briefly: government for the governing class. 

But the people had secured certain rights which were to be 
of immense value to them in extending their control over the 
Maryland government. Chief of these were the control over the 
Lower House of Assembly and the need of its agreement for the 
passage of any act. The control of this branch of the govern- 
ment was sufficient to insure success in the major controversies 
for popular liberty in spite of the fact that all other branches 
of the government were in the hands of the Lord Proprietor or 
his representatives. 

During the seventeenth century the rural and detached life 
of the average Marylander who spent his live cultivating tobacco 
was not conducive to an intense political development. But with 
the steady growth of population increased by immigration from 
England and the strong tide of immigration of German Palatines 
in the 18th century a more active poHtical life came into being. 

The German Palatines were responsible for a large share of 
this development. They had been induced to come to the pro- 
vince by offers of land and exemption from all public levies.^ 



Lower House Journal, October 27, 1710. 



— 49 - 

As early as 1710 there were considerable numbers in the province. 
Later new settlers were offered two hundred acres of land if 
married, and if between the ages of fifteen and thirty and single, 
one hundred and fifty acres, free of charge and exempt from 
quit-rents for the first three years. By 1774 Frederick County had 
a population of fifty thousand, chiefly German Palatines— nearly 
one seventh of the population of the province. The motive lead- 
ing to the granting of such terms had been to secure the settle- 
ment of territory along the disputed Pennsylvania boundary. 

These settlers, instead of concentrating on the cultivation of 
tobacco, planted wheat and corn and developed the iron and 
lumber industries of Maryland. In a short time tobacco no longer 
represented the entire export from the province; wheat, corn, flour, 
pig iron, bar iron and lumber became important exports. With 
this development of commerce and intercourse a more active 
political life appeared, and with it a constantly increased effort 
toward restriction of the proprietary power. The indifference to 
and abuses of the real interests of the people by the office 
holding class, the fact that the holders of the most lucrative 
offices were in many cases relatives of the Proprietor, and the 
antipathy growing out of the difference of religion of the Roman 
Catholic office holding class and the Protestant population, in- 
evitably led to hostility toward the government. 

The people failed to understand why taxes should be collected 
for the benefit of the office holder and not in the interest of the 
public. Further when officers who held more positions than they 
could administer properly, sold them to deputies the situation 
was aggravated further and the Lower House protested energetic- 
ally, stating that "The sale of offices, now open and avowed, 
obliges the purchaser, by every possible means in his power, to 
enhance his fees; this is contrary to law and leads directly to 
oppression." ^ 

The personalities of the later proprietors were not such as 
to inspire friendly relations, Charles, 5*h Lord Baltimore neglected 
his province and executive authority waned perceptibly during 
his administration. Frederick, 6*'i Lord Baltimore, was inferior 



Lower House Journal, December 20, 1769. 



— 50 — 

mentally and degenerate in personal character. His sole interest 
in the colony lay in securing sufficient income to live in luxury, 
and to find profitable positions in the colony for his friends. His 
illegitimate son, Henry Harford, who inherited the province in 
1771 had no real influence upon the colony, as greater events 
prevented his retaining it for any length of time. 

Able men were found in the province to lead the movement 
for popular control. Though educational facilities there were hope- 
lessly inadequate, there were many well educated men in the 
province. The young men in many cases went to Virginia to study 
at the college of William and Mary or to the Academy in Phila- 
delphia, whereas the sons of the wealthier families often studied 
in England, at Oxford or Cambridge, and if Roman Catholics, at 
universities in France. 

As a logical result of conditions in the colony, practically all these 
men chose the study of law. There was no future in the church. 
The school master had no opening. There was no army. On the 
other hand there was ample field for action in politics. The way 
to prominence and power was through election to the Lower 
House of Assembly. But for this it was necessary to serve the 
interests of the people or else lose their support. In this way the 
people found men who ably championed their cause. Thus, al- 
though the average of education of the common people was low, 
their political rights were skilfully maintained. 

The 17»i century had seen no intense political controversies. 
But conditions were such as to justify the desire of the people 
to effect such changes in the government as would make it more 
responsive to the common will. Moreover, they had acquired con- 
trol over sufficient governmental machinery to make it possible and 
the personalities needed to direct the movement were not lacking. 



CHAPTER V. ■ 

PEOPLE vs. PROPRIETOR. 

The history of Maryland during the 17*^ century had been 
comparatively tranquil insofar as it related to direct struggles for 
power between proprietor and people. But following upon the 
restoration of the province to Charles, 5'^ Lord Baltimore, after 
twenty three years of royal government, a period of wrangling 
and controversy set in, that nothing save a fundamental change 
in government could terminate. 

One of the chief early controversies centered upon the question 
of how far the English common and statute law extended to the 
province. During the first thirty years of the colony's existence, 
the tendency had been toward an independent' criminal code. 
By the end of 1650 there were specific laws regulating judicial 
procedure in cases of drunkenness, adultery, profanity, perjury, 
mutiny, sedition and general resistance to the execution of the 
law, but in cases where the provincial law was silent, the individual 
judges were left to decide cases as they saw fit, their sole in- 
struction being to use their "sound discretion". In 1662 the 
Assembly enacted a bill providing for the administering of justice 
in accordance with the laws of England in cases where the pro- 
vincial law made no provision, the interpretation and application 
of such law being left to the judgment of the individual courts.^ 
This system remained in effect until 1674, with the natural result 
that the law was variously applied, often to the complete prostitu- 
tion of justice. 

In 1674 the Lower House sought to have the British law as 
a whole introduced into the province, but the Upper House would 

• Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, 1637—1638 to 1664, 
pages 435, 436, 448. 



- 52 — 

not agree to an arrangement which would thus nullify a large 
part of the Proprietor's privilege. The Lord Proprietor was willing 
that such parts as were suitable to the province be introduced as 
long as they did not contravene his proprietary rights. The people 
desired the whole or at least that the right of selection be left 
to the courts. The result of their differences was that nothing was 
done and the status of the law reverted to what it had been in 1650.^ 

The question was agitated on several occasions prior to the 
period of royal government under William and Mary, always with- 
out result. The latter part of the regime of Charles had been so 
arbitrary and illadvised that the people clung more tenaciously 
than ever to the fundamental English law. With the institution 
of royal government it immediately became the established and 
unquestioned practice to administer justice according to the laws 
of England where the laws of Maryland were silent. All commissions 
to justices of the courts read to that effect. Therefore when Charles, 
5*h Lord Baltimore, seven years after the restoration of the province, 
held that no English laws extended to Maryland unless the domin- 
ions were expressly mentioned, the members of the Lower House 
were aroused over the possibility of losing what they considered 
essential guarantees of liberty. They thereupon adressed a protest 
to the Lord Proprietor, stating that the colonists in coming to the 
colony had forfeited none of their rights as free Englishmen, that 
the "province hath always hitherto had the common law and such 
general statutes of England as are not restrained by words of 
local limitation, and such acts of Assembly as were made in the 
Province to suit its particular constitution, as the rule and standard 
of its government and judicature." Anyone who held the contrary, 
intended to "infringe our English liberties, and to frustrate the 
intent of the crown in the original grant of this province. " ^ 
Standing resolutions to this effect were then inscribed upon the 
books of the Lower House and remained until the Revolution of 1776. 

Daniel Dulany, Sr., attorney general and member of the Lower 
House drafted a bill during this session (1722) designed to define 
the relationship of the English law to the province. It provided 



Ibid., 1666 to 1676, pages 347—349, 374 on. 
Lower House Journal, October 22, 1722. 



- 53 — 

that all judges in taking their oath of office should swear to ad- 
minister justice "according to the laws, statutes, and reasonable 
customs of England and the acts of assembly and constitution 
of this province and passed by both houses of assembly." But 
the law was vetoed, and similar laws enacted in 1727, 1728 and 
1730 met the same fate. Each veto intensified the people's fears 
and their determination to secure the passage of such a law. 
The year 1731 again saw the failure of a similar bill. The following 
year a conference between the two Houses of Assembly resulted 
in the drafting of a bill for judges to take oath to administer 
justice "according to the laws, customs, and directions of the 
acts of Assembly of this province so far forth as they provide, 
and where they are silent according to the laws, statutes, and 
reasonable customs of England as used in the province." This 
law was passed and received the Lord Proprietor's assent. 

The Lower House and the people were in holiday mood over 
this success, yet the Proprietor had in reality sustained his original 
contention and the English law in gross had not been introduced 
into the province. Nor did he allow any bill to pass which would 
bring abut such a condition. On the other hand, the Assembly 
from time to time declared certain especially desired statutes as 
being in effect in the province. 

During this controversy, crime had been in many cases al- 
lowed to go insufficiently punished, as the judges had no fixed 
guide to go by and as a natural result, the lack of severity and 
rigor in its suppression brought about an increase of lawlessness. 

In general the chief controversies centered upon financial 
questions. During the early history of the province there was little 
friction either as to the imposition of taxes, their collection, or 
the manner of expenditure, but the end of royal government and 
the newly restored proprietary government in 1715 brought many 
controversies, which grew continually more acute. As the province 
grew the people began to question more and more the reasons 
for furnishing livelihood and income to men who were imposed 
on the colony from above and were designed to protect the 
interests of the proprietor as opposed to the people's. 

All duties, fees, taxes and revenues from whatever source had 
practically from the beginning been collected with the approval 



— 54 - 

of the Lower House. Already in 1650 an act of Assembly was 
passed prohibiting the imposition of any tax or duty without the 
consent of the people or their representatives. This policy was 
insisted upon at all times. But the efforts of the Lower House 
were not merely limited to passive defense of this point of view 
but to the influencing of legislation which would extend its 
power at the expense of the Proprietor's. 

One of the chief disputes related to a duty levied to provide 
revenue for carrying on the Maryland government. In 1671, the 
Assembly, in return for the Proprietor's agreement to accept pay- 
ment of his quit-rents at 2 pence as the equivalent of a pound 
of tobacco, passed an act providing for this rate and for the im- 
position of a duty of 2 shillings on every hogshead of tobacco 
exported, 12 pence of which were to be paid the Proprietor for 
the support of government. This arrangement was to remain in 
effect during the lifetime of Cecilius, but was continued under 
his son Charles, even during the period of royal government. In 
1704 the portion of the bill relating to the payment of the 12 
pence duty was made perpetual. 

In 1715 after the short proprietorship of Benedick Leonard 
and the succession of the 2"^ Charles, the perpetual law was tem- 
porarily superseded by another act for the support of government. 
This continued until 1733. The feeling had been growing that 
the quitrents were burdensome and the law was therefore not 
renewed in 1733. But immediately on its expiration the perpetual 
law of 1704 relating to the 12 pence duty went into effect. But 
there was no law lowering the rates of quit-rents and the Lower 
House was impotent to effect such a change without an act of 
Assembly assented to by the Proprietor, and this the latter refused 
to agree to. The Lower House therefore made an effort to find 
some flaw in the original law. 

Under the royal government one quarter of the 12 pence 
duty had been used for military purposes, though there was no 
express provision for it. But the Lower House now advanced the 
argument that this should be the practice still, and if it were not 
the entire original law was invalid. On that theory a bill was 
introduced by the Lower House in 1739 for continuing the duty 
of 12 pence, ^ 1000 of which were to be used for the purchase 



— 55 - 

of arms and ammunitions for the defence of the colony. But the 
Proprietor, unassailable from a legal point of view in the act of 
Assembly of 1704, withheld his assent. The question was brought 
up at various times thereafter but always with the same result. 
From 1750 the Lower House adopted a standing resolution declar- 
ing the duty illegal, unless one quarter were applied to purposes 
of defense as under the royal government. 

The members of the Lower House sought to have an act of 
Assembly passed for the appointment of an agent to present the 
case to the crown, knowing full well that the Proprietor would 
not give his assent. They were in reality quite conscious of the. 
weakness of their case, and the perfect legality of the Proprietor's 
position, but used his refusal to give the impression that he feared 
to expose the case to the light. 

Prior to 1739 all fines and forfeitures imposed by the pro- 
vince's penal laws were made payable to the Lord Proprietor. No 
accounting of these monies was made to the Lower House for 
a century. After 1739 it refused, to pass bills for fines of any 
sort, the proceeds of which should go to the Proprietor, but in- 
sisted that such impositions should go to defray expenses of the 
government. But though they could thus block any new imposi- 
tions, they were powerless to change the law then in force. But 
they found another way of exerting pressure. From 1745 the 
Lower House declined to allow claims for certain expenditures 
on the plea that the money arising from fines and forfeitures 
should be used for such purposes. Gov. Sharpe was refused 
^ 120 that he had advanced for the carrying of letters during 
wartime, on this ground, and the salary of the clerk of the Coun- 
cil was likewise refused, for the same reason. 

The governor's council had been paid from 1671 to 1689 from 
the 12d duty for support of government, and during the period 
of royal government from poll taxes. But there was no specific 
provision for their salaries as members of the Council, whereas 
their pay as members of the Upper House was provided for by 
law. An incident brought this question to the attention of the 
Assembly and it quickly became a center of irritation. During 
the years 1709—1714 the province had been without a regular 
governor. During that time Edward Lloyd, the president of the 



— 56 — 

Council, acted as governor. He drew one half pay as governor 
and full pay as councillor. The Lower House asserted that the 
drawing of salary as governor and councillor was a breach of 
law, and that Lloyd should therefore refund «#52. 13. 6 and 
29,580 pounds of tobacco, pay he had received as councillor 
during that time.^ Supported by the Council, he declined to comply. 
The Lower House did not succeed in securing the reimbursement 
of these funds. But after studying the question it concluded that 
the members of the Council were entitled to no salary as coun- 
cillors, there being no legal provision for it, but merely precedent. 
They asserted further that is was contrary to reason to tax people 
to pay men hostile to their interests. As a consequence the Lower 
House refused to make provision for the Council from 1725 — 1735. 
In the latter year the Upper House refused to pass the journal 
of accounts unless their salaries as members of the Council were 
provided for.^ The Lower House, thus checkmated reluctantly 
provided for the salaries of the Council. This continued until 
1747. The following year, when the Upper House pursued the 
same tactics, the Lower House preferred to forego its own salary, 
rather than to appropriate anything for the Council, and no ac- 
counts were passed until 1756 when the Upper House yielded. 
Thereafter it never urged its own pay. 

An act of 1678 provided for the raising of a revenue by 
requiring hawkers, peddlers, inn -keepers, and tradesmen to 
purchase a license to ply their trade. Toward 1750 the value of 
revenue from this source was between ^ 400 and ^ 500. This 
money was given to the secretary of the province until 1689. 
During the period of royal government, the Lower House withheld 
such income from the royal secretary asserting that it should be 
expended for the public welfare, whereupon Sir Thomas Lawrence, 
the Ist royal secretary, appealed to the crown and had this money 
confirmed to his use. But ten years later the Assembly again 
withheld it, even in the presence of a royal order to the contrary. 

Upon the restoration of the Proprietor in 1715 Charles, 5*^ 
Lord Baltimore gave the money to the two secretaries, requesting 



' Lower House Journal, July 20, 1716. 
^ Upper House Journal, May 4, 1736. 



— 57 - 

the Assembly to confirm this by an act of Assembly. This the 
Assembly did. This system was continued until 1739. With the 
breaking out of the Third Colonial War the license money was 
used by order of the Assembly for redemption of the bills of 
credit issued to assist the crown in waging the war. 

Frederick, who became Proprietor in 1751, complained of 
this last procedure and instructed the governor to assent to no 
further act of the kind. But when news of Washington's repulse 
at Long Meadow by the French arrived. Gov. Sharpe urged an 
appropriation, and the Assembly offered to devote the license 
money to this use, an arrangement which Sharpe accepted. After 
Braddock's defeat, the Proprietor assented to its use for military 
purposes against the French. This procedure continued without 
opposition until 1763. 

Frederick then opposed its use for any purpose other than 
his own use. He sent instructions to the governor to countenance 
no bill depriving him of the sole right of granting licenses and 
receiving the income from that source. But the Upper House as 
well as the Lower felt that this was unjustified. As soon as this 
instruction was brought to their attention, the board of the Council 
appointed a committee, which reported that it found no justification 
for such a claim. It observed that in England anyone could follow 
any trade without a license from the crown, that the charter 
assuredly granted the Proprietor no higher prerogative than 
belonged to the crown, and if the Proprietor had a right, he 
doubtlessly had a remedy to enforce it. But no remedy was known 
to the committee. The governor transmitted the report to the 
crown, adding that any effort to enforce the Proprietor's view 
point would create untold friction and opposition. The Proprietor 
thereupon withdrew his objection and allowed the license money 
to be used for public purposes. 

A further important source of revenue and contention was 
that of fees. Prior to 1650 the governor and Council had fixed 
the amount of fees except during the three years from 1639 to 
1642. But beginning with the Assembly of 1650 fees to be paid 
the secretary and sheriffs were regulated by joint action of both 
Houses, and later, those of other officers. In 1669, charges by 
the Lower House that excessive fees were being collected, merely 



— 58 — 

brought the response that it was the Lord Proprietor's right to 
fix fees, and the Lower House acquiesced in this point of view. 
However, in order to avoid the collection of extortinate fees, the 
Lower House in 1676 requested the Lord Proprietor to furnish 
the rates of fees fixed up to that time, whereupon it passed a 
bill fixing those rates as the maximum to be collected for the 
services in question.^ 

With the advent of Royal Government instructions from the 
Crown were issued to the governor instructing him to regulate 
fees in conjunction with the Council. But the Lower House in 
its first session protested energetically against such an arrangement 
and succeeded in securing the agreement of the governor to 
make no changes in fees without the concurrence of the Lower 
House. 

A growing feeling in the Lower House and among the people 
that fees were excessive began to manifest itself during the later 
years of Royal Government. Agitation for a downward revision 
of fees was justified on the plea that the growth of population 
and the consequently greater receipts permitted such a change 
without reducing the incomes of officers to any point approxi- 
mating what they had been when the original scale of fees had 
been fixed. Several attemps during the latter period of Royal 
Government had no result other than to arouse bitter feeling 
between the two Houses. The members of the Upper House 
invariably urged that the incomes of officers were not out of 
proportion to services rendered and that their reduction would 
only result in lowering the dignity of the different offices.^ After 
the passage of a bill providing for a 25 7o reduction of fees by 
the Lower House in 1719, which was promptly rejected by the 
Upper House, a conference between the two Houses was called. 
A compromise was then agreed upon, which left unchanged the 
fees of the chancellor, sheriffs, coroners, clerk of the court of 
appeals, and the criers of the provincial court and of the county 
courts, whereas the fees for the secretary, commissary general, 
surveyor general, and his deputies, the clerk of the Council, and 



' Proceedings & Acts of the General Assembly, pages 498—499. 
* Upper House Journal, June 29th -30th, 1714. 



— 59 — 

the county court clerks, were reduced in accordance with the bill 
of the Lower House.^ When the bill came before the Lord Pro- 
prietor, though disapproving of it, he decided to take no action 
against it. 

In 1728 the Lower House endeavored to effect a further 
reduction of fees, justifying their action on the grounds that the 
intention of the government to decrease by law the planting of 
tobacco during that year by one-third and thus increase its price, 
made it necessary. But on this occasion the Upper House would 
neither accept such an arrangement nor compromise. The law of 
1719 therefore expired in 1725 and the colony had no table of 
fees. This situation was brought to the attention of the Lord 
Proprietor who in 1733, after another failure of the Assembly to 
provide a suitable bill the preceding year, issued a proclamation 
fixing the amount of fees at a level approximately the same as 
that of 1719. He had but recently come to the province and his 
presence there seems to have been sufficient to insure the quiet 
acceptance of his proclamation. 

The regulation of fees and the state of the tobacco industry 
were intimately related. Tobacco was not only the principal crop 
and staple export, but from the beginning was the unit of value, 
being used as currency. But one fatal defect had been permitted 
to creep in. In the laws providing for the amounts of rents, 
fines, salaries and taxes to be paid, no reference was made as 
to the quality of tobacco to be paid. Consequently worthless 
tobacco was often mixed with the good, and a certain quantity 
did not represent a definite value. The same defect of variable 
quality obtained in the case of tobacco for export, a fact which 
severely prejudiced the value of Maryland tobacco in foreign 
markets. Overproduction further aggravated the situation and 
prices fell steadily. In 1639 tobacco had been worth 3 pence a 
pound, whereas by 1666 over-production combined with the 
plague in England and consequent interruption of the carrying 
trade had rendered tobacco practically worthless, and thereafter 
until 1747 it was rarely worth a penny a pound. 

The combined evils of over-production, poor quality and 
a late market brought the industry to the verge of ruin toward 
* Upper House Journal, June 6, 1719. 



— 60 — 

the middle of the 18th century. The great obstacle to the regu- 
lation of the tobacco industry was the question of fees. The Lower 
House would not agree to a tobacco inspection act, as this would 
have increased the value of tobacco, and officers fees would then 
have been higher than ever. The Upper House on the other 
land, would not agree to a radical lessening of fees and a result- 
ant decrease of officers incomes. 

In 1743 Daniel Dulany, Junior, in conjunction with the gov- 
ernor and the remainder of the Council, made a supreme effort 
to arrive at a solution of this question, explaining that it was to 
the interest of both Houses to yield. By 1745 an agreement 
between the two Houses was reached whereby fees were to be 
reduced 20^0 and tobacco was to be inspected and graded. But 
though it passed both Houses the governor rejected it, in retal- 
iation for the Assembly's failure to pass a suitable bill for the 
purchase of arms and ammunition for use in the Third Colonial 
War then in progress. 

The tobacco industry, was the basis of the prosperity of the 
colony and regulation of the tobacco industry and revision of 
officers fees were necessary, otherwise ruin was inevitable. By 
1747 the opposing elements composed their differences and the 
Inspection Act of 1747 was passed and received the approval of 
the governor. It combined the reduction of fees agreed upon 
two years before with provisions for inspecting and grading tobacco. 
The desired effect was quickly arrived at and the improvement 
of the tobacco market was rapid. Moreover, the act worked no 
hardship on the officers as their income was in reality undimin- 
ished as increased value compensated for reduced quantity. 

This act was renewed periodically until 1770, when the 
Lower House refused to continue it without a further reduction 
and classification of fees. But the Upper House would not agree, 
and though message followed message from one House to the 
other, neither would recede from its stand, whereupon the governor, 
after consultation with the Council, issued a proclamation con- 
tinuing the old table of fees.^ 

This set the Lower House in a turmoil of excitement. It 
asserted that the proclamation was an abuse of power, that it 

' Lower House Journal, October 17, 1771. 



-- 61 - 

was not only illegal but arbitrary and oppressive, and not even 
an English monarch had been known to regulate the salaries or 
fees of officers by proclamation. They then petitioned the governor 
to withdraw it, adding that even in the case that "the fees im- 
posed by this proclamation could be paid by the good people 
of this province with the utmost ease, and that they were the 
most exactly proportioned to the value of the officers' services, 
yet even in such a supposed case, this proclamation ought to be 
regarded with abhorrence; for who are a free people? Not those 
over whom government is reasonably and equitably exercised, 
but those who live under a government so constitutionally checked 
and controlled that proper provision is made against its being 
otherwise exercised. This act of power is founded on the de- 
struction of this constitutional security. If prerogative may rightly 
regulate the fees agreeable to the late inspection law, it has a 
right to fix any other quantums; if it has a right to regulate to 
one penny, it has a right to regulate to a million ; for where does its 
right stop? At any given point? To attempt to limit its right after 
granting it to exist at all is as contrary to reason as granting it 
to exist at all is contrary to justice; if it has any right to tax 
us, then whether our own money shall continue in our own 
pockets or not depends no longer on us but on the prerogative: 
there is nothing which we can call our own. The forefathers of 
the Americans did not leave their native country and subject 
themselves to every danger and distress to be reduced to a state 
of slavery." ^ 

But the governor remained obdurate. He held that in the 
Proprietor's chartered right to establish offices and appoint offi- 
cers was included the corollary right of fixing their salaries. He 
further cited precedent within the colony and insisted that it 
was necessary for the prevention of confusion and extortion. 
Efforts to regulate the question in two succeeding sessions of 
Assembly were fruitless, the temper of the people meanwhile 
becoming more and more agitated. 

An article appearing in the Maryland Gazette, the provincial 
newspaper, removed the main discussion of the question from 



Lower House Journal, November 30, 1771, 



— 62 — 

the legislature to the public and brought the question to the 
attention of the entire province. This article was in the form of 
a dialogue between two citizens. — " The First Citizen " attacked 
the proclamation and "The Second Citizen" defended it, the 
latter point of view supposedly representing the legal and just 
one. Soon after a further article appeared and maintained that 
the " First Citizen's " view-point had been incompletely presented 
and that it was therefore necessary to supplement it with further 
facts. 

Though the articles were anonymous they were recognized 
as the work of Daniel Dulany, Jr. who favored the proclamation 
and Charles Carrol of Carrolton, who represented the popular 
point of view. They had both been educated in Europe,' — as 
was the case with a large number of the leading men in the 
province, — the former in England and the latter at the Jesuit 
College of St. Omar and then at the College of Louis XIV. in 
Paris, followed by seven years study of English law as a member 
of the Inner Temple. 

Dulany, though enjoying great popularity a few years earlier 
because of his defence of the colonial view-point in the Stamp 
Act controversy had gradually lost influence with the people 
because of his own and his family's relationship to the Lord 
Proprietor. As secretary-general of the province he held the most 
profitable position of the colonial government, whereas his brother, 
as commissary-general held a position little less lucrative. In 
addition two other members of this family were members of the 
Council. 

This was the point of attack in Charles Carrol's first article. ^ 
He wrote that the government was being perverted for the "selfish 
views of avarice and ambition", that the country was suffering 
for the lack of the Inspection Act whereas fees collected under 
that act were continued in order that certain officers of the Council 
should not have their incomes lessened. A fortnight later Dulany 
wrote a further article for the " Gazette " in defense of the procla- 
mation in which he maintained that the proclamation provided 
for the lowest table of fees that had been in effect in the colony 



' Md. "Gazette", February 4, 1773. 



— 63 — 

and that it was therefore a guarantee against extortionate charges. 
Moreover, if it were illegal, it should be submitted to the courts 
for judgment. 

Carrol rejected the idea of the courts deciding such a case, 
as the judges were interested parties. He added that the procla- 
mation was contrary to the spirit of the Maryland constitution 
and that if the courts pronounced it legal, it would be a violation 
of the Lower House's recognized rights to have a share in the 
imposition of taxes. He closed in stating that "One would 
imagine that a compromise, and a mutual departure from such 
points respectively contended for, would have been the most 
eligible way of ending the dispute; if a compromise was not to 
be effected, the matter had best been left undecided; time and 
necessity would have softened dissension and have reconciled 
jarring opinions and clashing interests; and then a regulation by 
law, of officers' fees, would have followed of course. What was 
done? The authority of the supreme magistrate interposed, and 
took the decision of this important question from the other 
branches of the legislature to itself; in a land of freedom this 
arbitrary exertion of prerogative will not, must not, be endured." 

Quite apart from any question of logic or law, Carrol repre- 
sented the popular point of view. The elections of 1773 hinged 
on this question and the antiproclamation candidates were elected 
without exception. The people of Annapolis rejoicing to have 
found a champion who so ably represented their point of view, 
organized a mock funeral, placed a copy of the proclamation in 
a coffin, and to the beat of muffled drums, marched to the 
gallows, hanged, cut down and buried the proclamation. After 
the ceremony they instructed their newly elected delegates Wm. 
Paca and Philip Hammond to send a letter to Charles Carrol, 
assuring him of their approval and appreciation of his efforts. 
They wrote Carrol that "It is the public voice. Sir, that the 
establishment of fees by the sole authority of prerogative is an 
act of usurpation, an act of tyranny, which in a land of freedom, 
cannot, must not, be endured." A later article in the Gazette 
signed by Thomas Johnson, Samuel Chase and Wm. Paca asserted 
that final judgment and ultimate authority were to be found in 
the freemen of Maryland. This was indeed the unconscious 



— 64 — 

attitude of the freemen of Maryland, and the collisions with the 
mother country begun in the last colonial war were within the 
next few years to crystallize that attitude into a conscious prin- 
ciple. 

The controversies depicted up to this point had been of the 
nature of direct differences between the people of Maryland and 
the Proprietors and, had had little influence upon the home 
government. But during the period of the Third and Fourth 
colonial wars, this policy of the Lower House was not merely 
extended and more aggressively waged, but the effort to coerce 
the Proprietor into surrendering certain of his privileges by 
withholding support from the British arms in its warfare against 
the French and Indians brought the province into direct opposition 
to the Crown. 

The early history of the province with reference to military 
activity had been singularly quiet. Though militia bills had from 
time to time been urged upon the Assembly by the 1st Lord 
Proprietor, the people, occupied with more direct personal concerns 
and menaced from no quarter felt under no necessity of providing 
an efficient military organization. 

In an effort to provide security against possible attacks, an 
act was passed in 1661, periodically renewed, and in 1704 made 
perpetual, providing for a 2 shilling duty on every hogshead of 
tobacco exported, one half of which was to be employed toward 
maintaining a constant magazine with arms and ammunition for 
the defense of the province and defraying other necessary charges 
of government. But the failure of the Lord Proprietor to use 
this income for military purposes offered the pretext to the Lower 
House for asserting the invalitity of the law three quarters of a 
century later. 

Likewise, an act was passed in 1671 providing for the 
collection of an ostensible fort duty from all vessels, English and 
foreign, trading with Maryland, to the amount of one half a 
pound of powder and three pounds of shot per ton burden, or 
the equivalent. Fourteen pence were fixed as the equivalent, 
and this amount was collected for over a century by the Pro- 
prietor and kept by him for his personal account instead of for 
purposes of fortification. 



— 65 — 

Unbroken peace and freedom from attack by the Indians 
and absence of military raids after the Claiborne episodes, had 
lulled the people of the province into a sense of complete secur- 
ity. As a consequence military' questions had taken little of the 
attention of the Assembly, and not until the Third Colonial War 
were the people compelled to face such questions seriously. 

At the beginning of this war the Assembly passed an act 
appropriating ^ 2562 for carrying on the war against the French 
and Indians, and later raised three companies of soldiers, which 
were sent to Albany to cooperate in the northern campaign. But 
none of the fighting was in the vicinity of the province and the 
Lower House therefore saw no valid reason for burdening the pro- 
vince with expense for a far-off military campaign. The idea of 
fighting for the greater security and extension of the kingdom 
had no weight in the colony. As a consequence, when Gov. 
Ogle placed before the Assembly further requisitions for support- 
ing the Maryland forces, although they were to be paid only un- 
til Parliament could appropriate money to cover the entire cost, 
the Lower House replied that it had raised, provisioned and trans- 
ported the troops and could do no more. 

Meanwhile the fortification of strategic points along the 
St. Lawrence, Ohio and Mississippi Rivers by the French was 
proceeding apace. But the Maryland governor could take no 
steps to check this activity. The lack of a standing military force 
with established laws for its maintenance left him powerless. 

In 1753 several traders of the Ohio Trading Company were 
seized and held by the French and two of the company's trading 
posts were destroyed. Gov. Dinwiddle of Virginia sent Col. Wash- 
ington to the French garrison with instructions to require the 
evacuation of Virginia's territory. England and France were not 
at war and the attack could therefore not be justified. 

When the home government was informed, the Earl of Hold- 
ernesse. Secretary of State, urged the governors of the colonies 
to resist the encroachments of the French. In following out these 
instructions Gov. Sharpe appealed to the Maryland Assembly to 
impose a tax to be devoted to military purposes, but the Lower 
House refused, stating that "We are sufficiently apprehensive of 
the great danger of suffering a foreign power to encroach upon 

5 



— 66 — 

any part of his Majesty's Dominions, and we are resolutely deter- 
mined to repel any hostile invasion of the province by any for- 
eign power . . . But as there does not appear at present to be 
any pressing occasion for imposing a tax upon the people for 
these purposes, we hope our unwillingness to do it at this time 
will be ascribed to the real motives of our conduct, a prudent 
care and regard to the interests of our constituents than any disin- 
clination to the service recommended,"^ 

Washington returned to Virginia in the early part of 1754 
and reported that the French had built several forts along the 
Ohio River and further that their instructions from the King of 
France directed them to advance further and if opposed, to at- 
tack. Confident that this intelligence would convince the Assembly 
that the situation was fraught with danger, Gov. Sharpe asked 
for assistance and at the same time laid an appeal from the 
Governor of Virginia before the Lower House. But the latter 
unanimously resolved that "We are fully convinced that our own 
security is connected with the safety of our neighbours, and that 
in case of an attack we ought mutually to assist and support 
each other. But as it does not appear to us that an invasion 
or hostile attempt has been made against this or any other of 
his Majesty's colonies, we do not think it necessary to make any 
provision for an armed force, which must inevitably load us with 
expense." ' 

In the same message Gov. Sharpe requested an appropriation 
of money for a gift to the Indian Tribes of the Six Nations, 
necessary for the continuance of the British alliance. The Lower 
House complied by appropriating ^300 for this purpose and 
^•^200 for defraying the expenses of the commission to be 
charged with this mission, the money to be collected from reve- 
nue arising from licenses of ordinary inn-keepers, hawkers and 
peddlers. The Upper House amended the bill so that license 
money from inn-keepers alone should be mortgaged to the total 
amount, reserving the other license money to the Lord Proprietor 
but the Lower House declined to accept this amendment and 



' Lower House Journal, November 16, 1753. 
* Lower House Journal, February 29, 1754. 



— 67 — 

the bill was lost. Meanwhile the French and Indians were grow- 
ing more open in their hostility. 

In May, Gov. Sharpe again convened the Assembly and in 
his opening address sought to bring home to the Assembly the 
necessity of contributing and assisting in the campaign to check 
French encroachment. The Lower House thereupon introduced 
a bill for raising funds, but if it were really interested in assist- 
ing, the bills recommended gave little evidence of it. They 
seemed rather to be an effort to exploit the situation in extending 
their own authority at the expense of the Proprietor's. 

The bill introduced at this session provided for 5 shillings 
tax on each wheel of a coach, chair, chaise or chariot, increased 
duty on convicts, indented servants and negro slaves imported, 
and the diversion of the ^2> hawkers' and peddlers' license to 
this use. In addition every lucrative office was to be taxed. But 
the Upper House, composed of the office holders of the pro- 
vince, objected to the clause imposing taxes upon its members, 
and likewise protested against the use of the Proprietor's license 
money for public purposes. It therefore rejected the bill. A con- 
ference between the two Houses failed to result in a settlement. 
But before the end of the session ^ 500 in currency was ap- 
propriated for a present to the Tribes of the Six Nations and 
^ 150 for meeting the expenses of the commission charged with 
this matter. 

Virginia thus saw that no aid was to be expected from Mary- 
land and Washington accordingly set out with three hundred 
Virginia troops for the invaded territory. But an attack by a 
superior force of French and Indians compelled him to retreat 
after heavy losses. When this news reached Maryland and the 
further news that the French were building Fort Duquesne, at 
the confluence of the Allegheney and Monogahela Rivers, a stra- 
tegic position menacing the frontier settlements of Virginia and 
Maryland, Gov. Sharpe hurriedly convened the Maryland Assembly 
and in his opening address on July 17th said: 

"The designs of the French must now be evident to every 
Dne. They have openly and in violation of all treaties invaded 
lis Majesty's territories and committed the most violent acts of 
lostility by attacking and entirely defeating the Virginia troops 



. — 68 — 

under Col. Washington," He then urged the necessity of appro- 
priating money to be used for defence. 

The same day the Lower House voted to raise ^6000 
which were to be collected in the same manner as the bill in 
the previous session had provided, with the exception that offices 
were not to be taxed but instead a duty of 2 shillings per gallon 
on Madeira wine was to be imposed. Although this bill con- 
tained the clause relative to hawkers' and peddler's licenses, the 
Governor and Upper House considered the need so pressing as 
to justify its acceptance. The governor then enhsted two com- 
panies and sent them against the French. 

In December 1754 the fourth session of Assembly of the 
year was called and Gov. Sharpe stated that the recent appro- 
priation was exhausted and urged appropriation of additional 
funds. The Lower House promptly passed a bill for raising 
^ 7000 by continuing the same taxes, but the Lord Proprietor had 
meanwhile instructed the governor to assent to no bills applying 
his license money to public uses, and the bill was therefore lost. 

In 1755 Gen. Braddock with a thousand troops of the British 
regular army arrived in America to conduct operations against the 
French. On his arrival he held a conference at Alexandria, Va., 
at which it was recommended that Maryland furnish ^ 4000 to 
the campaign for expelling the French. The Lower House voted 
to raise ^5000 provided that the license money amounting to 
^ 645 annually be used for that purpose. But the Upper House 
and the Governor obedient to their instructions would not agree 
to such a bill. 

Gov. Sharpe thus found himself bound hand and foot. Dur- 
ing this year, after the Lower House had refused to appropriate 
the funds for keeping three hundred men on the western fron- 
tier, he sought to order the few companies of militia then under 
arms to march to the frontier but the Lower House protested. 
A reply from the governor maintaining his right to such action 
elicited the following protest from the Lower House. "We are 
really at a loss to conceive what could induce your Excellency 
to be of the opinion that you had a power under that law to 
march the militia of this Province whenever and wheresoever you 
pleased, and that in order to prevent as well as to repel an in- 



— 69 — 

vasion. But surely there are no words in that law that can give 
you that authority, nor can anything be farther from the intent 
and design of it; for such an authority would put it in the power 
of the Governor of this Province, whenever he found himself 
opposed in any views or designs that he might have tending to 
destroy liberties of the people, to compel the whole militia of 
the Province at any time when he might suggest danger to march 
to any part of the Province he pleased, and keep them there 
until the Representatives had complied with all his demands, 
let them be never so extravagant or injurious to the people. 
Such a power we conceive is not given nor could ever have been 
intended to have been given by any men in their senses . . . 
We are apprehensive unprejudiced persons may infer that those 
who advised your Excellency to take that measure intended under 
the specious pretence of affording present protection to a few, 
by degrees to introduce an arbitrary power, the exercise of which 
must in the end inevitably enslave the whole." ' 

Meanwhile Braddock had embarked on a campaign against 
Fort Duquesne. On July 3, 1755, he was ambuscaded by a body 
of French and Indians and his army practically annihilated, 800 
being killed and Braddock himself so severely wounded that he 
died a few days later. The citizens of Frederick County were 
fleeing from the frontiers, Dunbar with the remnant of the army 
was retiring toward Philadelphia, thus leaving the frontier defence- 
less. But, fortunately for the settlers the Indians had disbanded 
as was their custom after a successful attack and the French 
garrison of Fort Duquesne had retired to -the north to parry 
possible attacks against Forts Niagara and Grown Point. 

A council of war of the English leaders was then held at 
New York, where a plan of operations and the quota of supplies 
to be furnished by each province were decided upon. Gov. Sharpe 
reconvened the Assembly February 23, 1756 and informed it of 
what was desired. 

The Lower House immediately voted to raise J^- 40,000 for 
various military purposes. The sources of this money were to be 
an excise and import duty on wine, rum, brandy and spirits, an 



Lower House Journal, April 15, 1758. 



— 70 - 

import duty on horses, pitch, turpentine and tar, an additional 
duty on convicts and negro slaves, a tax on billiard tables, 
bachelors and law suits, a tax of 1 shilling per hundred acres of 
land, if owned by a Protestant, and double if owned by a Roman 
Catholic, taxes upon the Proprietor's manors and continued use 
of license money for this fund. Two bills framed upon this basis 
were rejected by the Upper House. When a third bill was before 
the Lower House, the Upper House requested a conference at 
which it was agreed that the clause concerning convicts should 
be omitted, certain modifications regarding taxes upon the Pro- 
prietor's manors were to be made, and the commissioners who 
were to be enstrusted with the expenditure of the money and 
whom the Lower House wished to have the exclusive right of 
appointing, were to be appointed jointly. The bill was then 
accepted despite certain evident unfortunate features. But this 
proved to be the last supply bill. 

Nominally France and England had been at peace all this 
time but war was formally declared July 18, 1756. 

During 1757 efforts were again made to secure funds. The 
appropriation of the year before was nearly exhausted. The Lower 
House passed a bill for defending the frontier but freedom of 
action of the officers commanding the three hundred troops pro- 
vided for, was so restricted that Gov. Sharpe, after consultation 
with Gen. Loudon, vetoed it on the grounds that it was an un- 
desirable precedent to permit a colonial assembly to limit the 
operations of his Majesty's officers. 

In 1758 Gen. Forbes set out on a campaign to reduce Fort 
Duquesne. Maryland was requested to contribute to this campaign 
but the Lower House continued its old policy, passing a bill for 
raising ^ 45,000 largely on the same lines as the preceding one 
for ^ 40,000. But the Upper House rejected it, as it provided 
that the Lower House should have exclusive control over the 
appointment of the commissioners entrusted with expenditure of 
the money, that a double tax be imposed on Roman Catholics, 
and that a tax on the Proprietors quit-rents and his cultivated 
and uncultivated lands be imposed. It was indeed difficult to 
conceive how the Lower House could be so unreasonably grasping 
as to seek to tax the Proprietor's lands and quit-rents. This would 



— 71 — 

have meant the annihilation of the last vestige of his power. But 
the Lower House undoubtedly inserted these clauses with no 
expectation of their being accepted but to insure the rejection of 
the bills and thus free the people from contributing to the mili- 
tary campaigns of the mother country. 

Gen. Forbes, learning from a deserter that Fort Duquesne 
was but scantily garrisoned, hastened his march and captured 
it. This success heightened the people's indifference toward mili- 
tary affairs and in spite of repeated urgings the Lower House 
failed to pass another suitable supply bill. In all nine were 
rejected, five in the space of eighteen months. 

But as the main theater of war between England and France 
had been in Europe the military campaigns in the colonies were 
not of decisive importance. The treaty of Paris of February 10, 
1763 saw the annihilation of French power in Canada and North 
America east of the Mississippi River and with it a change in 
England's policy toward her colonies. 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE PEOPLE OF MARYLAND vs. THE 
HOME GOVERNMENT. 

Maryland's exaggerated jealousy of her rights during the 
colonial wars had exasperated the home government to the ex- 
treme. During this period England had been too preoccupied 
with the more pressing questions of warfare with France to be 
able to give colonial questions the attention she would have liked. 
But with the treaty of Paris in 1763 which saw the annihilation 
of French power in Canada and North America east of the Missis- 
sippi River, England was again free and decided to bring her 
colonies more definitely under her control. As a part of this pol- 
icy it was felt that they should bear part of the large war debt 
incurred in fighting the French. 

Financial and commercial impositions upon Maryland were 
not without precedent, although the charter had guaranteed free- 
dom of trade and freedom from taxation in the province's relation 
to England. But the Navigation Act of 1662 imposing an export 
duty of a penny a pound on tobacco shipped to other than British 
ports and later Navigation Acts restricting Maryland tobacco plant- 
ers to British markets and British ships, met with no concerted 
opposition. During the period of royal government these acts 
were more effectively carried out than before and after 1715, 
though the governors were again appointed by the restored Pro- 
prietors, such appointments were always subject to confirmation 
by the crown, which instructed all governors in detail as to the 
execution of the Acts of Trade and exacted compliance under 
bond and oath. In 1731 the Lower House was somewhat con- 
cerned over a parliamentary project to restrict manufacturing enter- 
prise in the colonies. 



— 73 — 

But in general, the inconveniences of royal interference were 
overshadowed by more immediate and more acute differences 
between the proprietors and the Lower House of the Assembly. 
The people of the colony undoubtedly felt a definite affection for 
the mother country. It was the cradle of their institutions, English 
law seemed to them the most liberal and beneficent, especially 
as they were removed from the contemporaneous religious perse- 
cutions and political upheavals there, and consequently saw only 
the great outstanding features of the British constitution. Further, 
England was their chief market and therefore the source of their 
income. But the end of the fourth colonial war brought with it 
elements which were the beginning of estrangement. 

The members of the popular House of Assembly had under- 
gone a long apprenticeship in defending and extending their 
rights against the Proprietors and thus had a lively appreciation 
of the value of comparative independence, the making of their 
own laws and the disposal of their own money. Thus when 
England embarked upon her policy of restricting their freedom 
and of bending them to her will, Maryland exerted the full force 
of her resistance against the mother country. 

But England was not conscious of the intensity of this spirit. 
On the contrary, the Lower House had on a recent occasion at 
least seemed to give encouragement to a different belief. A letter 
of disapprobation from the Earl of Egremont, Secretary of State 
at the time, called forth by the Lower House's failure to provide 
sufficient funds for carrying on the fourth colonial war, was 
answered by a letter to the governor as follows: "As to the 
severe reprehension contained in the Earl of Egremont's letter, 

which you have been pleased to lay before us, we must 

conclude that our most Gracious Sovereign and his Ministers 
have not been fully and truly informed of the repeated generous 
offers of the people heretofore made by their Representatives 
to raise very large supplies for his Majesty's service by bills 
passed for those purposes and constantly refused by the Upper 
House." ^ But notwithstanding such expressions of willingness to 
place their resources at the disposal of the home government, 



Lower House Journal, March 19, 1762. 



— 74 — 

the Assembly had no intention of surrendering the least part of 
its asserted claim to the right of appropriating its own money 
for use in such ways and for such purposes as it saw fit. 

An Act of Parliament of 1764 imposing port duties on Mary- 
land contained in its preamble a foreshadowing of the new pol- 
icy. It was asserted that it was just and necessary that a revenue 
be raised in America. 

Shortly after, it was reported that the British minister Gren- 
ville had recommended to Parliament the passage of a stamp 
act for raising revenue in the colonies. This immediately became 
a topic of excited conversation and protest, but the latter went 
unheeded and on March 22, 1765 such an act was passed by Parlia- 
ment. It provided that stamps varying from 3 pence to ^ 10 
be used on all commercial and legal documents in the colonies, 
as well as on pamphlets, newspapers and publications. It further 
provided for trial without jury in cases of infraction of this law. 
The Maryland Assembly was not in session and the prevalence 
of small pox justified Gov. Sharpe in not convening it. But the 
measure was warmly opposed in articles appearing in the "Mary- 
land Gazette" and thoroughly disapproved of throughout the 
colony. 

Opposition was not confined to passive protest but found 
expression in acts of violence. Mr. Hood, a Marylander, had been 
appointed stamp distributor for the province while on a visit to 
England. On his arrival in Annapolis he was personally affronted, 
and his effigy was whipped, pilloried, hanged and burned at 
various places in the province. On September 2, 1765, a mob 
of three to four hundred persons pulled down a house he had 
built for receiving the stamps. After these incidents. Gov. Sharpe 
wrote Lord Halifax, that nothing save military force would suffice 
to protect Hood and that the temper of the people was such that 
he was convinced the stamps would be burned, if landed. 

A number of the chief men of the province organized an 
association known as the " Sons of Liberty " to resist the execu- 
tion of the Stamp Act. These men seized Hood, carried him be- 
fore a magistrate, and compelled him to take oath to resign and 
to give no aid, direct or indirect, in executing the Stamp Act. 
When the stamps arrived later on the sloop-of-war "Hawke" 



— 75 — 

there was no authority to receive them and they could only be 
landed secretly and re-shipped to England. 

In the fall of 1765 a number of the leading lawyers of the 
province petitioned Gov. Sharpe to convene the Assembly. This 
was desired in order that delegates might be chosen for the Stamp 
Act Congress which was to be held in New York. The governor 
complied with this petition fearing that a refusal would cause 
violent protest. The Assembly met on September 23, 1765 and 
immediately took up the question of the Stamp Act. A letter 
from the Massachusetts legislature recommending consideration 
of the state of affairs and the transmission of a memorial to 
the home government was unanimously approved by both 
Houses. Further, William Murdock, Edward Tilgman, and Thomas 
Ringgold were appointed delegates to the New York Stamp Act 
Congress and given instructions to lodge a joint protest with re- 
presentatives of the other colonies against the infringement of 
the time honored right of trial by jury and to petition for the 
removal of the stamp taxes. A few days later the Lower House 
adopted the following series of resolution expressive of its atti- 
tude : 

I. Resolved, unanimously, That the first adventurers and sett- 
lers of this province of Maryland brought with them and trans- 
mitted to their posterity, and all other his Majesty's subjects, 
since inhabiting in this province, all the liberties, privileges, 
franchises and immunities that at any time have been held, en- 
joyed, and possessed, by the people of Great Britain. 

II. Resolved, unanimously, That it was granted by Magna 
Charta, and other the good laws and statutes of England, and 
confirmed by the Petition and Bill of Rights, that the subject should 
not be compelled to contribute to any tax, talliage, aid, or other 
like charges not set by common consent of Parliament. 

III. Resolved, unanimously. That by a royal charter granted 
by his Majesty, King Charles 1 in the eighth year of his reign 
and in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred and thirty 
two, to Cecilius, then Lord Baltimore, it was, for the encourage- 
ment of the people to transport themselves and families into 
this province among other things, covenanted and granted by 
his said Majesty for himself, his heirs, and successors, as follow- 



— Te- 
eth; "And further, our pleasure is, and by these presents for 
us, our heirs and successors, we do covenant and grant, to 
and with the said now Lord Baltimore, his heirs and assigns, 
that we, our heirs and successors, shall, at no time hereafter, 
set or make, or cause to be set, any imposition, custom or other 
taxation, rate or contribution whatsoever, in or upon the dwellers 
and inhabitants of the aforesaid province, for their lands, tene- 
ments, goods or chattels, within the said province, or to be laden 
and unladen with in any of the ports of harbors of the said 
province: And our pleasure is, and for us, our heirs and successors, 
we charge and command, that this our declaration shall be hence 
forward, from time to time, received and allowed in all our 
courts, and before all the judges of us, our heirs and successors, 
for a sufficient and lawful discharge, payment and acquittance: 
commanding all and singular our officers and ministers of us, 
our heirs and successors, and enjoining them upon pain of our 
high displeasure, that they do not presume, at any time, to attempt 
anything to the contrary of the premises, or that they do in any 
sort withstand the same; but that they be at all times aiding and 
assisting, as is fitting, unto the said now Lord Baltimore, and 
his heirs, and to the inhabitants and merchants of Maryland 
aforesaid, their servants, ministers, factors, and assigns, in the 
full use and fruition of the benefit of this our charter." 

IV. Resolved, That it is the unanimous opinion of this house 
that the said charter is declaratory of the constitutional rights 
and privileges of the freemen of this province. 

V. Resolved, unanimously. That trials by juries are the grand 
bulwark of liberty, the undoubted birthright of every English- 
man, and consequently of every British subject in America; and 
that the erecting of other jurisdictions for the trial of matters 
of fact is unconstitutional, and renders the subject insecure in 
his liberty and property. 

VI. Resolved, That it is the unanimous opinion of this house 
that it cannot, with any truth or propriety, be said that the free- 
men of this province of Maryland are represented in the British 
Parliament. 

VII. Resolved, unanimously. That his Majesty's liege people 
of this ancient province have always enjoyed the right of being 



— 77 — 

governed by laws, to which they themselves have consented, in 
the articles of taxes and internal polity; and that the same hath 
never been forfeited, or any way yielded up, but hath been cons- 
tantly recognized by the king and people of Great Britain. 

VIII. Resolved, That it is the unanimous opinion of this 
house that the representative of the freemen of this province, in 
their legislative capacity, together with the other parts of the 
legislature, have the sole right to lay taxes and impositions on 
the inhabitants of Maryland, under color of any other authority, 
is unconstitutional, and a direct violation of the rights of the 
freemen of this province."^ 

This was indeed a clear exposition of the Maryland view- 
point and should have afforded the home country clear insight 
into the colonial mind. 

After adopting these resolutions the Lower House declined 
to entertain further business and was thereupon prorogued by 
the governor. 

November 1st arrived and there were neither stamps nor dis- 
tributor. Without stamps business could not legally be carried 
on. But the court of Frederick County decided to continue as 
in the past, using no stamps. Six of the county courts recom- 
menced business, before the news of the Stamp Act's repeal had 
arrived in April 1766, and the "Maryland Gazette" which had 
suspended publication in accordance with the new law in October 
1765 reappeared January 30, 1766 and attributed its interruption 
to an error in judgment. Business had largely continued without 
stamps, but the news of repeal was hailed with boisterous re- 
joicing. Guns were fired, bonfires lighted, patriotic addresses 
given and the heart of Maryland seemed to beat in closer har- 
mony with that of England than ever before. 

But the following year Parliament passed the Townshend 
Acts, which imposed duties on tea, glass, paper and painters 
colors. These duties were to be collected by a Board of Customs, 
the members of which were to be armed with "writs of assist- 
ance." The latter permitted customs officers to enter private 
houses unannounced in search of smuggled goods. They speci- 



Lower House Journal, September 28, 1765. 



- 78 — 

fied neither time, place, nor goods, but were general and unde- 
fined. Massachusetts immediately sent out a circular letter to the 
other colonies urging common protest against these acts. 

To counteract this letter Lord Hilsborough, Secretary of 
State, instructed Gov. Sharpe to use his influence with the Mary- 
land Assembly to minimize its effect. The latter then urged the 
Assembly to treat the Massachusetts letter "with the contempt 
it deserved" but the Lower House replied that "we cannot be 
prevailed on to take no notice of, or to treat with the least degree 
of contempt, a letter so expressive of duty and loyalty to the 
Sovereign, and so replete with just principles of liberty; and 
your Excellency may depend that whenever we apprehend the 
rights of the people to be affected, we shall not fail boldly to 
assert, and steadily to endeavor to maintain them. "^ They then 
addressed a petition to the king declaring that "The people of 
this Province, Royal Sir, are not in any manner, nor can they 
ever possibly be, effectually represented in the British Parliament. 
While, therefore, your Majesty's Commons of Great Britain con- 
tinue to give and grant the property of the people in America, your 
faithful subjects of this and every other colony must be deprived 
of that most invaluable privilege, the power of granting their 
own money, and of every opportunity of manifesting by cheerful 
aids, their attachment to their king, and zeal for his service ; they 
must be cut off from all intercourse with their sovereign, and ex- 
pect not to hear of the royal approbation; they must submit to 
the power of the Commons of Great Britain; and precluded 
the blessings, shall scarcely retain the name of freedom." 

The Assembly was immediately prorogued for its failure to 
heed the Secretary of State's letter and from that time on differ- 
ences between the mother country and Maryland were handled 
independently of the Assembly. 

In order to make the force of their will felt, the people entered 
into non-importation agreements directed against England. None 
of the taxed articles were to be imported nor were non-importers 
to deal with anyone who handled such goods. The associators 
watched for the arrival of forbidden goods and saw that they were 



Lower House Journal, June 21st, 1768. 



— 79 — 

reshipped to England. On one occasion, a ship with its entire 
cargo was sent back in spite of the protests of the recently arrived 
governor, Robert Eden, who came to the colony in the spring 
of 1769. In addition the people were to make themselves as 
economically independent of the mother country as possible. This 
policy was efficacious. British merchants suffered from non-im- 
portation to such an extent that within a year exports fell from 
^'^ 2,400,000 to ^ 1,600,0001 and British merchants then brought 
their influence to bear to have the duties removed. Parliament 
likewise found that the royal revenues were decreasing rather 
than increasing, and therefore in April 1770 decided to repeal 
the Townshend acts, on the plea that duties levied on articles 
of British manufacture were "contrary to the true principles of 
commerce." 

But a 3 d duty was left on tea to show that England had 
not surrendered the right of taxing the colonies, in principle. In 
addition the advisability of raising a revenue in the colonies 
was reaffirmed. But no effort was immediately made to compel 
the acceptance of such a policy. But with the renewed troubles 
in the North and the quartering of British troops in Boston three 
years later, Massachusetts urged the other colonies to constitute 
committees of correspondence to communicate with one another 
with the idea of deciding upon measures that would protect 
American interests. Maryland immediately appointed such a com- 
mittee. Following upon the destruction of tea in Boston harbor, 
the British " Intolerable Acts " providing for the closing of Boston 
harbor, the forfeiture of the Massachusetts charter, and the asser- 
tion of the right of quartering troops in any colony, Maryland 
^vas aglow with indignation. For was it not possible that similar 
measures might at some future time be used against her? The 
recognition of this fact made Maryland feel that the case was 
mdeed her own. The people immediately despatched ship loads 
Df provisions to Boston and expressed their sympathy for the people 
Df Massachusetts in word and deed. 

The Maryland Assembly was not in session and Gov. Eden 
prevented its meeting by continued prorogations. A town meeting 



S. E. Forman, American History, page 165. 



- 80 — 

of Baltimore of May 31, 1774 therefore recommended that a 
general convention of deputies from all counties in Maryland be 
held. This was agreed upon and on June 2, 1774 ninety two 
delegates from all counties in the province met at Annapohs. 
They urged common action against these acts, and declared them 
violations of the human rights of the colonies as well as of their 
constitutional rights. Matthew Tilghman, Thomas Johnson, Jr., 
Robert Goldsborough, William Paca and Samuel Chase were 
appointed Maryland's representatives to the First Continental 
Congress, and empowered to call a meeting of the Maryland 
Convention upon their return from the general congress, when 
measures adopted there should be laid before the Convention. 
The Convention thereupon adjourned. 

In the month of October an incident occured illustrating 
Maryland's attitude toward Parliamentary taxation. The brig 
"Peggy Stewart" arrived in Annapolis on October 15th vvith an 
assorted cargo, among which were seventeen packages of tea for 
James and Joseph Williams, merchants in Annapolis. The brig 
was the property of Anthony Stewart, who paid duty on the tea 
in order to be able to land the rest of the cargo. When this 
became known the people were indignant. Stewart was sum- 
moned before the convention and requested to explain. The 
offence was aggravated by the fact that he was one of the signers 
of the non-importation agreement. He expressed his regret, 
stating that it had been necessary to land the tea in order to 
land the rest of the cargo, and offered to atone for his indis- 
cretion by burning the tea pubhcly. This was considered sufficient 
by the majority of the Convention but the people were in no 
mood for half measures. They favored burning the brig. Stewart 
seeing their mood, offered to fire the brig himself. It was then run 
aground near Windmill Point and set afire, the crowd watching it burn 
to the water's edge. Opposition could not well have been more 
open, more flagrant than this. 

Early in November 1774 the Maryland delegates who had 
attended the First Continental Congress at Philadelphia issued 
a call for a meeting of the county deputies the 26 1^ of November. 
At this meeting a committees of observation to insure the execu- 
tion of measures recommended by the Convention were appointed, 



— 81 — 

likewise smaller committees of correspondence. The time was too 
short to permit all the delegates to appear and the meeting was 
therefore adjourned for further business until December 8«h. At 
this meeting eighty five delegates were present, five elected from 
each county by the regularly qualified voters of the province. 
They recommended the forming of an efficient militia; and if 
the acts of Parliament directed against Massachusetts or if taxa- 
tion upon any colony were imposed by force, Maryland should 
lend active aid to any colony thus attacked. In addition ^ 10000 
were appropriated for the use of the Continental Congress, and 
deputies to the next Continental Congress were appointed and 
empowered to agree to all measures which the latter considered 
necessary for redressing American grievances. A Committee of 
Observation was also appointed to insure the execution of all 
measures decided upon and to set the date of the Convention's 
next meeting. 

The latter was again called to meet April 24, 1775 and aside 
from voting to raise ^"^600 by subscription and adopting reso- 
lutions instructing its delegates to the Continental Congress to 
endeavor to secure recognition of colonial rights by such means 
as would not preclude an ultimate reconciliation with the mother 
country, voted to adjourn. 

But the skirmishes of Lexington and Concord in April 1775 
and the battle of Bunker Hill rendered reconciliation problemat- 
ical. On July 26, 1775 the Maryland convention again assembled 
and expressed itself as follows: 

"The long premeditated, and now avowed, design of the 
British government, to raise a revenue from the property of the 
colonists without their consent, on the gift, grant, and disposition 
of the Commons of Great Britain; and the arbitrary and vindictive 
statutes passed under color of subduing a riot, to subdue by 
military force and by famine the Massachusetts Bay; the unlimited 
power assumed by Parliament to alter the charter of that Province 
and the constitutions of all the colonies, thereby destroying the 
essential securities of the lives, liberties, and properties of the 
colonists; the commencement of hostilities by the ministerial 
forces; and the cruel prosecution of the war against the people 
of Massachusetts Bay, followed by Gen. Gage's proclamation, 

6 



— 82 — 

declaring almost the whole of the inhabitants of the united colo- 
nies, by name or description, rebels and traitors, are sufficient 
causes to arm a free people in defence of their liberty, and 
justify resistance, no longer dictated by prudence merely, but by 
necessity ; and leave no other alternative but base submission 
or manly opposition to uncontrollable tyranny. The Congress 
chose the latter; and for the express purpose of securing and 
defending the united colonies, and preserving them in safety 
against all attempts to carry the abovementioned acts into execu- 
tion by force of arms, resolved that the said colonies be immed- 
iately put into a state of defence, and now supports, at the joint 
expense, an army to restrain the further violence, and repel the 
future attacks of a disappointed and exasperated enemy. 

"We therefore, inhabitants of the Province of Maryland, 
firmly persuaded that it is necessary and justifiable to repel force by 
force, do approve of the opposition by arms to the British troops 
employed to enforce obedience to the late acts and statutes of 
the British Parliament for raising a revenue in America, and alter- 
ing and changing the charter and constitution of the Massachu- 
setts Bay, and for destroying the essential securities for the lives, 
liberties, and properties of the subjects in the united colonies. 
And we do unite and associate as one band, and firmly and 
solemnly engage and pledge ourselves to each other and to 
America, that we will, to the utmost of our power, promote and 
support the present opposition, carrying on as well by arms as 
by the continental association restraining our commerce. 

"And as in these times of public danger, and until a recon- 
ciliation with Great Britain on constitutional principles is effected 
(an event we ardently wish may soon take place), the energy of 
government may be greatly impaired, so that even zeal unrestrained 
may be productive of anarchy and confusion, we do in like 
manner unite, associate, and solemnly engage in the maintenance 
of good order and the public peace, to support the civil power 
in the due execution of the laws, so far as may be consistent 
with the plan of opposition; and to defend with our utmost power 
all persons from every species of outrage to themselves or their 
property, and to prevent any punishment from being inflicted 
on any offenders other than such as shall be adjudged by the 



- 83 - 

civil magistrate, the Continental Congress, our Convention, Council 
of Safety, or Committees of Observation."^ This was submitted 
to the freemen of the province and received their approval. There- 
after, five delegates from each county were to be elected by the 
duly qualified voters, who had voted for deputies to the Assembly. 
They were to constitute the supreme authority of the province. 
The executive power of the Convention was to be embodied in 
a Council of Safety of sixteen members and a Committee of 
Observation in the counties. 

But the sentiment of the province, though willing to insist 
on its rights even to military opposition still hoped for reconcil- 
iation, and therefore forbade its delegates to the Continental 
Congress which met January 1776 to agree to any declaration of 
independence or to conclude any foreign alliance. The sole object 
of its course of action was to secure protection of the province's 
rights. 

But military operations moved rapidly forward. Maryland 
not only furnished her quota to the Continental army but sent 
two companies to Boston soon after the battle of Bunker Hill. 
She also fitted out armed ships and cruisers to protect her plan- 
tations along the Chesapeake Bay, which had been attacked at 
various times by British cruisers. 

The continued military efforts on the part of England led 
the majority of the members of the Continental Congress to the 
conclusion that independence was the sole solution of the con- 
troversy. But the Maryland delegates were bound by the in- 
structions of the Maryland Convention. They therefore reported 
that the trend of opinion was toward independence and asked for 
further instructions. The question was then submitted to popular 
vote in Maryland and the freemen voted to withdraw the former 
instructions and to permit the Maryland deputies to join with 
those of other colonies in preparing a declaration of independence. 
This authority was communicated to them June 23, 1776 and 
the Maryland delegates collaborated with those of the remain- 
ing twelve colonies in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 
1776. 



W. H. Browne. The History of a Palatinate, pages 271—273. 



— 84 — 

But the Maryland Convention felt that it was its duty to 
likewise declare its independence in its capacity as a sovereign 
state and accordingly drew up the following declaration. 

A DECLARATION OF THE DELEGATES OF MARYLAND. 

"To be exempted from the Parliamentary taxation^ and to 
regulate their internal government and polity, the people of the 
colony have ever considered as their inherent and unalienable 
right; without the former, they can have no property; without 
the latter, no security for their lives or liberties. 

"The Parliament of Great Britian has of late claimed an un- 
controllable right of binding these colonies in all cases what- 
soever; to enforce an unconditional submission to this claim the 
legislative and executive powers of that State have invariably 
pursued for these ten years past a steadier system of oppression, 
by passing many impolitic, severe, and cruel acts for raising a 
revenue from the colonists: by depriving them in many cases of 
the trial by jury; by altering the chartered constitution of our 
colony and the entire stoppage of the trade of its capital; by 
cutting off all intercourse between the colonies; by restraining 
them from fishing on their own coasts; by extending the limits 
of, and erecting an arbitrary government in the Province of 
Quebec, by confiscating the property of the colonists taken on 
the seas, and compelling the crews of their vessels, under the 
pain of death, to act against their native country and dearest 
friends ; by declaring all seizures, detention, or destruction of the 
persons or property of the colonists, to be legal and just. 

"A war unjustly commenced hath been prosecuted against 
the united colonies with cruelty, outrageous violence, and per- 
fidy; slaves, savages, and foreign mercenaries have been meanly 
hired to rob a people of their property, liberties, and lives; a 
poeple guilty of no other crime than deeming the last of no esti- 
mation without the secure enjoyment of the former; their humble 
and dutiful petitions for peace, liberty, and safety have been re- 
jected with scorn ; secure of, and relying on foreign aid, not on 
his national forces, the unrelenting monarch of Britain hath at 
length avowed, by his answer to the city of London, his deter- 



D 3.4 



— 85 — 

mined and inexorable resolution of reducing these colonies to 
abject slavery. 

"Compelled by dire necessity, either to surrender our prop- 
erties, liberties, and lives into the hands of a British King and 
Parliament, or to use such means as will most probably secure 
to us and our posterity those invaluable blessings. 

"We, The Delegates of Maryland, in Convention assembled 
do declare that the King of Great Britain has violated his com- 
pact with this people and they owe no allegiance to him. We 
have therefore thought it just and necessary to empower our dep- 
uties in Congress to join with a majority of the united colonies 
in declaring them free and independent States, in framing such 
further confederation between them, in making foreign alliances, 
and in adopting such other measures as shall be judged neces- 
sary for the preservation of their liberties; provided the sole and 
exclusive rights of regulating the internal polity and government 
of this colony be reserved for the people thereof. We have also 
thought proper to call a new Convention, for the purpose of 
establishing a government in this colony. No ambitious views, 
no desire of independence, induced the people of Maryland to 
form an union with the other colonies. To procure an exemption 
from parliamentary taxation, and to continue to the legislatures 
of these colonies the sole and exclusive right of regulating their 
internal polity, was our original and only motive. To maintain 
inviolate our liberties and to transmit them unimpaired to poster- 
ity, was our duty and first wish; our next, to continue con- 
nected with, and dependent on, Great Britain. For the truth of these 
assertions, we appeal to that Almighty Being who is emphati- 
cally styled the Searcher of hearts, and from whose omniscience 
nothing is concealed. Relying on His divine protection and affi- 
ance, and trusting to the justice of our cause, we exhort and 
conjure every virtuous citizen to join cordially in the defence of 
our common rights, and in maintenance of the freedom of this 
and her sister colonies."* 

For seven years the freemen of Maryland fought side by 
side with those of the remaining colonies to insure the indepeiid- 



W. H. Browne, History of a Palatinate, pages 281-283. 



— 86 — 

ence they claimed. The Convention drew up a bill of rights and 
constitution embodying the points it had striven for during its 
whole history, then adjourned leaving the control of affairs in 
the hands of the Council of Safety. The government provided 
for by the new constitution began its functions March 21, 1777, 
when the Council of Safety surrendered the records and papers 
of the colony to the proper authorities. Its mission was then 
terminated and it passed out of existence. 

Gov. Eden, the last of the proprietary governors had pre- 
vented the Assembly from sitting from April 1774 until the ex- 
piration of the term of election of the delegates. In June 1776 
he issued new writs of election, but left the province soon after 
and the Convention forbade the election. With his departure the 
last vestige of proprietary authority disappeared. The Proprietor's 
individual rights were respected until 1780, when exasperated 
by loyalist conspiracies in the colony and England's seizure of 
Maryland's funds in the Bank of England, the Maryland govern- 
ment confiscated the property of all English subjects within the 
colony, with the exception of that of former Gov. Sharpe, who 
was given the option of returning to Maryland and becoming a 
citizen or of selling his property to its inhabitants. 

The Proprietor's quit-rents were likewise abolished. Henry 
Harford, the last Proprietor received an indemnity of ^ 10,000 
from the state of Maryland and jB' 90,000 from the English gov- 
ernment as payment of his claims. Except for this concession 
all other rights originally held by the Proprietor's passed to the 
newly erected state. 




.«&« ^'"^ 






.,/.-:^M^V^'.::^--' 



